Just in case I haven't said this yet -- driving Larry Craig out of the Senate but leaving David Vitter in place is ridiculous. Also -- making it disorderly conduct to hit on a guy in a public place seems deeply at odds with the non-criminal nature of hitting on a woman in a public place. Yes it makes sense to make it a crime to have sex in a bathroom, but no sex was had. I won't miss Craig as a Senator -- he was a lousy one -- but his successor's not going to be any better.
« Strange Progress | Main | Obama and Iran »
Double Standards
02 Sep 2007 09:13 am
Comments (24)
But, but, if police can't carry out surveillance on anyone anywhere at any time for any reason, and if police don't have the ability to detain people with or without charge for any purpose they feel is necessary, then the terrorists will win, right?
I'm sorry, I'm getting confused here:
Is there a suggestion now that Republicans want there to be checks and balances on police authority? They want there to be some protection of their Constitutional rights?
Hmmm, I don't know, if I didn't know better, I'd say that this would seem a surprising turn for Republicans -- given that they've spent the past 6 years shouting at us that anyone trying to monitor the surveillance, investigation, detention, and arrest powers of police must not be inhibited in any way whatsoever.
If Craig had been politically less hostile to the rights of homosexuals, then I might agree. The issue for Craig isn't so much the wrongdoing, it's the hypocrisy.
Can we please get some basic understanding of criminal law and the criminal justice system around here? I mean really, this sort of "making it disorderly conduct to hit on a gay man" stuff might be decent rhetoric at certain points but it obscures the truth and shows those who keep saying it of, at best, trying to score rhetorical points rather than throw light. Maybe that's the point of political blogs but anyway, what happened is something much more like this. This bathroom was known as a gay sex hook-up place. People generally don't like sex in public places like public restrooms, parks, etc. It might be mostly gay men who suffer from this but not only. Teenagers in parks are another example. I tend to think this worry is over-blown, but this certainly seems to fall w/in the area that the democratic people can decide on. So, to try to lower the rate of sex in the bathroom the police stake it out and do under-cover work of a completely normal sort. If you want to say "entrapment!" at this point you're out, since you've already shown you don't know what you're talking about. Craig goes to the can and solicits sex. Now, in most states that would be the crime right there- soliciting a criminal act is also a crime in most states. Oddly enough, it's not in Minn. But, the cop gets a bit ahead of himself and arrests Craig. Craig hasn't yet committed a crime and if he'd been willing to fight he would have gotten off. He faces a charge, however, that he's not willing to fight because it would be too emberassing. His potential defenses, all of which would have gotten him out of the charges, would expose him to even more scrutiny from anti-gay bigots. So, he cops a plea to this "disorderly conduct" charge, and that's that. There is no claim that foot-tapping is disorderly conduct or that hit on someone (even by gay men!) is disorderly conduct. He _agreed_ to this charge to have the other charges dropped. That's all there is to it and people should stop implying otherwise. It's purely a procedural measure, one very much like what happens in the vast, vast majority of our criminal cases where plea agreements are made in part because people don't want to risk a trial. That's perhaps a bad situation but one that probably cannot be changed any time soon. So please, stop with the stupid comparisons and bad analysis that have nothing to do with the legal situation.
I agree that Vitter is worse than Craig, but I'd like to think that if we had unisex bathrooms hitting on women there would be just as much a crime as hitting on men.
Matt (not the famous one), the question is then, despite your points, why is it that Craig is no longer a Senator, but Vitter, who actually did engage in an illegal sex act, is still a Senator?
why is it that Craig is no longer a Senator
Homophobia driven shame. But that's not a legal matter.
The politics of the response to Craig's actions are fascinating. First, he's clearly a gay bashing hypocrite. So are alot of GOPers, it seems. He's also a family values hypocrite. He shares this with Gingrich and Vitter and Hyde and Livingston and many, many others. He's an admitted criminal (misdemeanor variety), which he shares with many members of Congress. He has pissed off the anti-civil rights DC crowd by opposing the PATRIOT Act (Bush and McCain clearly hate him for this) but the people of Ruby Ridge and the rest of his home state love him for this. Unfortunately, his lack of courage in libertarian principle on this led to his guilty plea. Infamous Matt gets this on the button. He is not guilty, if he contests it. But, like most Republicans he doesn't have the courage of his convictions. The establishment likes his pro-immigrant stand. But wait! he also pissed off many by taking a pro-immigrant stand. He also made the mistake of being convicted of a crime while representing a state with a Republican governor, so he , unlike Vitter for example, would be replaced by a Republican. So, the Senate leadership didn't need him. He has no support. But after all is said and done, Craig had to resign because sex between men is icky and sex between men in a public bathroom is really icky.
Excuse me, Craig was arrested and booked, accused of a crime, plead guilty to a reduced charge, and paid a fine. Vitter has not even been arrested or charged with a crime. In fact, the only evidence against Vitter is his name appearing in an address book. Thus it seems to me that the two cases are in no way comparable.
Craig's successor won't be any better, and arresting guys who foot-tap in restrooms as a coded way to have sex is ridiculous. (the fact that the ritual is coded proves it is designed to only be noticed by others who know the code).
Notably lacking in all the comments is a single example of someone who was actually bothered by this tearoom stuff. Instead we get statements like "People generally don't like sex in public places like public restrooms, parks, etc." Really? If the sex happens so discreetly I don't even notice it why should I care? I don't want open sex (bad for children, etc), but this was anything but open. In the Craig case what was going to happen if it wasn't a cop reciprocating the foot tapping? Two guys masturbating in adjacent stalls holding hands under the partition? Leaving together to go somewhere else? BFD. Leave it alone.
But this IS bad for Republicans. It makes a Republican Senator look like a pathetic liar. It bursts the bubble of immature fundies who idealize their politicians. It makes Republicans generally look like sleazy hypocrites.
Democrats don't have these problems as much because they don't try to squelch homosexuality. They instead try to direct it into healthier institutions, like civil unions and marriage.
The Republicans are reaping the wages of repression. THAT is where the justice in this pathetic episode lies.
You can't compare signaling the willingness to perform an illegal act, sodomy in public, with unwanted heterosexual advances, i.e., let’s go to my place for sex.
Yeah, you can't compare them. Given the overwhelming social problem of sexual harrassment and sexual violence against women, it would be ridiculous to pretend that men sending signals in semi-private places, looking for other men to reciprocate, are at all equivalent to the problem of unwanted sexual advances towards women.
And yet the men on the street who yell "hey baby!" when a woman walks by don't routinely get arrested for disorderly conduct. They certainly don't get arrested for leering.
I don't think people should be hitting on anyone who doesn't want to be hit on. But really, if I had to choose between which person encounters more "disorderly" sexual conduct--a woman in everyday public life or an uninterested man walking into a bathroom where sometimes guys hit on each other with foot tapping signals--I think it's pretty clear who will be more frequently exposed to more disorderly conduct.
What I find interesting is how much of a problem we find the latter as opposed to the former. It's almost like the full excuse is "boys will be boys--so long as they're doing it to girls and not to other boys!"
The real liars and hypocrites are the rest of the Republicans, all of whom lived and worked with Craig for 30+ years. They knew perfectly well who and what he is, but they were all perfectly happy to keep him in the closet because he's been a reliable vote for cutting the rich's taxes.
There are plenty of openly and closeted gay staffers, lobbyists, and civil servants throughout Washington. Republicans know perfectly well who is gay, who is straight, who is cheating on his wife with whose young intern, and how many people have tapped that hot young blonde from the Right to Life organization. They cheerfully work together, drink together and attend the same parties. People gossip and snicker behind their backs, but mostly just mind their own business. All this is as it should be.
All this changes at election time, because Republicans need the votes of people who think men like Craig belong in jail. If the base knew how Republicans really feel, and really act towards gay individuals, they would rapidly get disgusted with politics and stay home on election day.
This would be the best possible outcome, and Craig had a chance to make it happen, if only he hadn't resigned. Evidently, he's a coward too.
Yglesias, you're being dishonest.
It wasn't disorderly conduct to hit on a man in a public place. The disorderly conduct was part of the voyeurism, and Craig was convicted of it because he pled out of the larger charge.
I know it's a bad idea and would be totally unenforceable, but believe me, there's plenty of us women who'd love to have hitting on us become illegal too. I don't think men can comprehend what it's like to have to constantly put up with leers, catcalls, whistles etc. No it's NOT flattering, it often has a hostile tone (not unlike sexual "jokes"), and is borderline sexual harassment. We women have to plan what we wear and where we walk to try, often unsuccessfully, to avoid this stuff. I've gotten to the age where I don't have to worry about this so much anymore, but it was often very unpleasant when I was younger. The expectation should be that, unless she's shown a clear interest, keep your trap shut, but that's not how it works. Most of the time the men who do this are more interested in impressing each other (it's often done by groups of men) than they are in getting any kind of positive attention from the woman.
1. If sex in the airport toilets is a problem, the authorities could have stopped it by stationing a uniformed officer in there in plain sight. Anyone who actually did anything that clearly indicated a desire to get it on would be hauled in wearing cuffs. I'm pretty certain that the presence of the officer would have stopped most of the activity by itself without an arrest.
2. It's ridiculous for the law to treat a pass by a man to another man as a crime while simultaneously holding that women just have to endure much worse. Either every unwanted invitation is a crime or none of 'em are.
Re: And yet the men on the street who yell "hey baby!"
I could yell "Hey, stud!" on the street a a hot guy and not get arrested (though I would not do this except maybe in a gay enclave, for obvious reasons having nothing to do with the law.) And meanwhile if I solicited a female prostitute for sex I could be arrested for that even though we had not consumated the deal.
Re: I don't think men can comprehend what it's like to have to constantly put up with leers, catcalls, whistles etc.
As a gay guy I can assure you that being hit on by people who don't know what "no" means is just as annoying for us, and that includes the occasional drunk chick at a gay bar who seems to be clueless as to what "gay" means.
Karen wrote: "It's ridiculous for the law to treat a pass by a man to another man as a crime while simultaneously holding that women just have to endure much worse."
Bullshit. Men can make passes at men legally almost everywhere.
Except in the bathroom.
And if a guy hid in a stall in the ladies' room and tried signalling the women in the other stalls, he'd be arrested a lot faster than a gay man trying to hook up in a men's room.
Karen wrote: "If sex in the airport toilets is a problem, the authorities could have stopped it by stationing a uniformed officer in there in plain sight."
Is it worth $100,000-$200,000 of taxpayer money every year, per bathroom, to station a police officer there for 18-24 hours a day?
Because some people get off on having anonymous sex in bathrooms and lack self-control?
Well, Jon, how much does it cost to do these stings? If it's too expensive to have a beat cop there, let the airport pay for one more security guard. I assume the idea is to stop bathroom sex, not to play gotcha with public officials, so a uniformed security guard is a better idea than an irregular sting.
And as for those who are so ill that they get their jollies by having sex with strangers in toilet stalls, there are always bars. I don't have much of a problem with that kind of thing going on in places where the clientele is at least old enough to buy a drink or a reasonable fake id. Airports don't qualify.
Matthew, me thinks your bending over backward to appear fair-minded about consenting adults seeking sexual contact smacks of the disingenuous.
Perhaps you think you can assume the pose that it would be a-o.k. w/ you for an old pervert like Larry Craig to lurk outside the bathroom stall where not only do your guts seem to have turned to concrete after six hours jammed into am airline coach seat, but your hemorrhoids are screaming bloody murder as well, and then this weird-looking guy is peering through the crack in the door multiple times as you are trying to simply get the damn b.m. over with, and, worst of all, this repulsive troglodyte has the gall to take the stall next to yours -- when plenty of other ones are open -- and start playing footsie.
Judging from your headshot, it is unlikely you personally are liable to experience such a grotesque violation of private space in such a vulnerable moment.
So let me tell you about it. Short of, say, sodomizing infant boys, Craig's kind of behavior is about as creepy as it gets.
Any possible redemptive light on Craig's über-ickyness disappeared when:
a.) he arrogantly flourished his business card as though it was a get-out-of-jail card
b.) plead guilty to the charges
and
c.) most damning of all, never consulted an attorney or anyone else until the story appeared in Roll Call.
Namby-pamby liberal tut-tutting about entrapment or gender equality in Craig's case amounts to nothing more than silly posturing. The guy willingly crossed the line into socially unacceptable behavior (such people are called "sociopaths") and, ergo, righteously deserves both the censure and loss of prestigious entitlement he had so fraudulently accumulated in his political career.
Furthermore, Larry Craig should be thankful his getting caught while compulsively acting out didn't take place in some god-forsaken corner of Wyoming, or Texas, or Idaho, where he might well have suffered the fate of a Matthew Sheppard in exactly the climate of condoned homophobia that Craig himself actively sought to legitimize with legislation.
No, Craig got off very easy for his sins, and deserves no fretting whatsoever about the degree of reprehensibility or fairness involved.
teknozen: There's no evidence that Craig would have done that to Matthew or anybody else -- he did it to the undercover officer, because the cop was playing along. He was trying to encourage him to continue, so he could bust him. If Craig went around harassing random strangers in bathrooms, he would have gotten caught a long time ago.
And what's with the "judging by your headshot" remark? You don't think MY is cute enough for Senator Craig?
oh, yeah. I almost forgot.
Then the miscreant goes and hires Michael Vick's lawyer for a ludicrous run at repudiating his plea of guilty.
For that bizarre choice alone, the Senate Ethics Committee is duty-bound to irrevocably banish the bozo to Waziristan for repulsively bad taste.
steves --
Craig has a documented history of the "I'm not gay thing," highlighted by his own strange statements at the time of the first page scandal. Then there is the re-occurring pattern of hearsay for two decades about his taste for tea rooms. It is not at all as though this fall from grace came randomly out of nowhere.
However, My point is that ANYONE -- be he US Senator of dubious repute or Joe Blowjob -- who conducts himself in the way Craig has been reported to do, is, without exaggeration, a sociopath and deserves perhaps our pity, but none of our sympathy.
Did you see the photo of the officer who busted Craig? Nice looking guy. How delusional would a silly old fart have to be to imagine that the attraction might be mutual?
And yes, M.Y. might indeed be cute enough for EX-senator Craig, but the more interesting question, is M.Y. cute enough for you?
Cuteness, or lack thereof aside (no accounting for taste, &c.), do I think M.Y. has ever been hit on in an airport bathroom? Somehow, the likelihood seems minimal. If he had undergone that uniquely distressing experience ("Why the fook does this a-hole think I might be interested? Is there some twisted vibe I am putting out here that I am not even aware of?"), my suspicion is that M.Y. might revise his holier-than-thou take on the whole sordid mess.
Either every unwanted invitation is a crime or none of 'em are.
Unwanted invitations of this sort are a major drag, but the wanted/unwanted distinction isn't in play here. Craig's conduct involves violation of the law even if the advances are wanted.
Comments closed September 16, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Please stop this silly "equivalence" argument. I'm sorry but you're not making sense. You can't compare signaling the willingness to perform an illegal act, sodomy in public, with unwanted heterosexual advances, i.e., let’s go to my place for sex.
Don't you want men trolling the internet for 13 year-olds arrested when they show up at the meeting place, even though no sex has occurred yet?
Posted by Chester | September 2, 2007 9:31 AM