Roll Call has uncovered a very indelicate matter involving right-wing Senator Larry Craig (R) of Idaho. He faced charges arising out of an arrest in a Minneapolis airport mens’ room in June. CNN says Craig made obscene hand gestures signifying purient intent to a plainclothes police officer in the next cubicle. The Senator pled guilty to disorderly conduct charges, which seem quite out-of-place unless there was a plea deal to keep the Senator out of the sex offender registry.
His statement on the matter raises more questions than answers, which means the story will take some time to play out. Here’s what the Washington Post is reporting: Craig said in a statement issued by his office that he was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.
“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions,” he said. “I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”
It is difficult to imagine a fact pattern that does not support the inference that Senator Craig is a closet homosexual. Yet Craig has consistently voted against fairness and equality for GLBT people throughout his career in public office. Hypocrisy is proving to be a very risky business these days; maybe Sentor Vitter can console Senator Craig.
Discuss
47 Comments . Leave a comment below.So an obscene gesture in a men's room means is tantamount to a sex offense that means that one is a closet homosexual? Forget bisexual, apparently...
regarding bisexuality. somehow this potential always gets overlooked with the heteromarried men having sneaky sex with other men. but either way, the guy is a cheater and a hypocrite, running with the
ImMorality Pack.a plea for Christ's sake. What more do you need? Who in their right mind would admit to lewd behavior in a public restroom? You would not do this. I would not do this. The only people who would admit to this are the guilty. Creepy dude.
I'm just noting two things:
Soliciting consensual sex does not make one a sexual offender; Soliciting sex with a partner of the same sex does not make one a homosexual.
...Craig has consistently voted against equal rights for gay people. I don't give a tinker's damn whether or not he is a homo- bi- or predominantly heterosexual male. The fact that he copped a plea to soliciting sex (which is what the plea was) from another male in a public rest room is more than enough evidence that he is something of a hypocrite in his public life.
Craig joins the long list of Republican hypocrites on sexual matters.
However, I think it's worth pointing out that jumping to conclusions about someone's sexuality is wrong in either direction. Sexual orientation is a spectrum, not a choice with two answers. I just see this as another of example of how the realities of the "B" and the "T" in LGBT are ignored by pressure groups.
Sexual orientation is a spectrum, not a choice with two answers. I just see this as another of example of how the realities of the "B" and the "T" in LGBT are ignored by pressure groups.
Regarding your first sentence, I neither know nor care whether you are gay. But what I will tell you is something that I've been posting on for years. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between the gay/lesbian/straight trichotomy, and the homo- bi- hetero-trichotomy. Gay/lesbian actually is a lifestyle--I've lived it all my life. It's how you hold yourself out to the public, not what you do in private.
Recent example: Jim McGreevy, former governor of New Jersey. He wasn't gay. He was straight, who wanted to have homosexual liasons on the side. He was married twice (to women, of course) and had fathered children by both of his wives. He was straight. Ted Haggard, too.
Regarding you second sentence, two points. Regarding Bi's, according to recent articles by Paul Varnell, most Bi's eventually go over to the "straight" category (although they, like McGreevy, may have occasional homosex liasons).
T's are a different matter altogether. (I know I'm going to get flamed for pointing this out.) T doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. It has to do with sexual identity. That is a totally separate issue. You might find this The Disparate Classification of Gender and Sexual Orientation in American Psychiatry http://www.priory.co... of use
If I disagree with almost everything you say? LOL
Suffice it to say, McGreevy was a text book closet case. He wasn't straight, even if he pretended to be. The fact that he now lives as an openly gay person only solidifies my words. Now, I don't know if Craig and Haggard are living either closeted gay or bisexual lives, but it's one or the other. Someone isn't straight because they say they're straight, they're only straight if they have absolutely no sexual attractions to people of the same sex. Sexuality certainly is a spectrum, but it's determined by the body's response to other people... not how they say they live their lives in public.
...I prefer mine. Actually, I have two sets of taxonomies, covering two separate sets of issues.
Why you apparently cannot understand that is beyond me.
raj, it's a simple case of probabilities. you've probably seen me write about it over at Pam's.
Just going on probabilities, the vast majority of bisexual people will end up in heterosexual relationships. Why? Because the number of potential partners in the opposite-sex pool hugely outnumbers the number of potential partners in the same-sex pool. It's just that simple. Of course, the probabilities are improved in the same-sex direction for bi people who have a cultural affinity for gay culture, or a leaning towards that side of the spectrum, etc. But all thinks being equal (I know, they never are...), most bi people will end up in heterosexual relationships.
...I figured out your handle at Pams, and, yes, I read your work. Not religiously, but I do read it.
According to Roll Call, here's some details from the police report:
Craig apparently was tapping his foot in a bathroom stall, which the officer knew was a cruising sign.
Tap your foot in a stall, get arrested. Huh?
anyone just tapping their foot the the tune in their head would admit to doing something obscene? i don't think so. he did 2 things wrong: 1. he got caught 2. he was stupid enough to not call his lawyer immediately. what an idiot, twice.
was in tune a Gilbert & Sullivan tune.
This has an interesting tie to the Romney campaign. The Boston Globe online reports:
Is it a GOP rule that each campaign have at least one campaign manager on the down low? McCain's is Rep Bob Allen, who offered an undercover cop $20 to do the deed. His excuses since the arrest have been fascinating, and include (in so many words) "the man was black so I was scared to not pay him so i could give him a bj" and "i was ducking into the park bathroom to avoid a lightening storm i knew was coming". i kid you not.
Did you see the Daily Show's take on Rep
George Michael...er...David Duke...Bob Allen?Succinct, and frickin hilarious, IMO.
hilarious, as usual. thanks for the link!
...Mike Rogers of blogactive dot com reported rumors of Craigs--let us put it this way--homosexual tendencies alomost a year ago. He was villified for spreading rumors, but it appears that he was pretty much correct.
This is nothing new, just just wanted to organize the facts for quick perusal. This is from the police report as reported at Roll Call, noted by Pablo above:
Boy gee, if I didn't know better, I'd sure think that the good Senator knew all these behaviors and signals because this wasn't his first time trying this...
...has anyone else's foot ever "accidently" come in contact with the person next to you? The same neighbor whose stall you spent two minutes in front of peeking in at through the cracks?
...if you really want an education on the issue. The solicitation there is (or at least was) quite annoying.
I usually don't do number two in public restrooms.
I was under the impression that the people were at urinals.
That must be a toilet stall.
My apologies for my poor command of the English language. While passes have been made at me in men's room, I meant to say that my feet have never encroached on the stall space of a neighbor's and touched his feet. Let alone, I never peeked through the stall crack for two minutes before said hypothetical encroachment.
...I was not responding to your comment.
I have to admit that I had been completely oblivious to passes that may have been made at me in mens' restrooms 30 years ago when I was in my 20s.
Rest of your comment I will leave uncommented upon, except to note that the BPL/Copley was right next door to what used to be the gay bar Chaps. Why didn't the people in the BPL rest rooms just go across the street and pick up people there, instead of annoying people in the rest rooms?
Then perhaps I should learn to read and write. But my comment was ambiguous and I needed an excuse for clarification. D'oh.
instead of use the library bathroom? easy: they were closet cases, so wouldn't be caught dead in a gay establishment. or they didn't like the smell of cigarette smoke.
...but they were annoying to even gay customers of BPL/Copley. That is one reason why I did not particularly mind if the closet cases where chased out of there.
Now they are going to Internet chat rooms.
Is
1. The continued erosion of the Republican hold over the so-called Moral Majority. Thankfully, they won't vote for Democrats either. Perhaps there are some good aspects to having such a low voter turnout?
2. Another good Democratic pick-up opportunity in the Senate. Sweet.
but, if we're lucky, the GOP will spend oodles of money on a primary [like the libs in MA-05], but with lots of mud slinging and toe stepping and ball kicking to go with it.
If we're really lucky, the Idaho GOP forms a pretty good schism, and their state government spends more time quarreling than trying to legislate Idaho back to the 1800s. If the ID Dems can pick up a few state lege seats, that'll be a pretty nice Idaho result from all of these extra curricular activities.
Rhetorics aside, there's a race to be had here where before there wasn't. If he resigns in disgrace, which is what's likely to happen here, who knows?
Although, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know what happens in Idaho in cases of resignation (ie special election, governor appointment, etc.). Furthermore, I can't remember if Craig was up for reelection or not.
Yet, to keep my spirits high, we get to continue on with labeling the Republicans as corrupt hypocrites... and teach the Religious Right that being gay is a part of this country, whether they like it or not. They can try to legislate against it, but they'll only accomplish keeping their own flock in the closet, where they do dangerous and truly immoral things (like cheating on their wives).
The Idaho Statesman conducted an extensive investigation into allegations of Craig's homosexuality. They note the fact he took piano lessons as a boy and include a comment that he has "precise speech patterns" that don't sound right in Idaho. It's clear that Craig is a closet case.
http://www.idahostat...
good god, is idaho the world capitol of stereotype manufacturing?
...pardon my childhood instruction
...and precise speech...
Henry Higgins: The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plane
Eliza Dolittle: The rayn in Spayn says maynly in the playn
You know where that's going, don't you?
As regards piano lessons, does anyone know whether Arthur Rubinstein or Alfred Brendel (!) exhibited any homosex tendencies? I don't care whether either of them did, but both of them did have huge hands, the better to do chords with. I actually saw both of them perform at Carnegie Hall in the 1970s. I was advised: sit to the left, so that you could watch the keyboard action. Fascinating.
see my comment here: http://www.bluemassg...
... of the right's reaction to the previous outing versus their reaction today:
Glenn Greenwald
Use craigslist or something else on the internet?
What's with public toilets and rest areas? Never did understand it.
...there are more than a few web sites that offer chat rooms for male-on-male sex. I am not going to post the URLs to any of them here.
The interesting thing is that, reading between the lines, it is obvious that more than a few of the people are (outwardly) straight (i.e. married, probably with children). It would be hillarious if it wasn't so sad.
The odd thing is that I have come to the conclusion that I know what they are looking for.
that raj has it right - they're gay but married or have otherwise secured the heterosexual membership ring, and are terrified of being found out. so they go to the most anonymous places they can find. if our culture didn't demonize sex and sexuality so much, this probably wouldn't happen. or at least, not to the great degree it does presently.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Tue 21 May 4:57 AM