RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Its the Hypocrisy Stupid! Sen. Craig's Wide Stance

By Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check

August 28, 2007 - 10:50am

Published under: | | | |
Scott Swenson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Scott Swenson's picture

Is it the sordid details of Roll Call's report of Sen. Larry Craig's airport layover habits or is it the hypocrisy of yet another GOP anti-gay, not to mention, married, politician being caught with his pants around his ankles in a public bathroom?

The most important question won't be asked by mainstream media: Just how much evidence does it take for people to understand that repressed sexuality leads to unusual, risky behavior? Healthy sexual behavior does not.

Rev. Debra Haffner writes at Sexuality and Religion

And no surprise, when I looked up his voting record at HRC this morning, Senator Craig has voted for anti-gay measures, most recently in 2006 for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Maybe we can count on him now for YES votes on ENDA and Hate Crimes Legislation. He did resign yesterday as chairman of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in Idaho.

In a world where sexual difference was affirmed as part of God's blessing, maybe, just maybe, these incidents wouldn't happen.

Amen, Rev. Haffner.

Many people understand that risk provides certain thrill, that ordinary activities may have more excitement if one feels they are getting away with something no one else knows about. Add a public element, the risk of being caught, and it sends some people over the top. But there is something truly perverse about a married U.S. Senator using the power of his office to defeat civil rights for openly gay Americans while cruising airport bathrooms for blow jobs. He is bound to his social conservative base in his public life, leading to debased hypocrisy, and risk, in his personal life. His votes are nothing shy of rhetorical gay bashing and apparent self-loathing.

Its not the sex, it's the hypocrisy we should focus on.

But we all know it won't be the hypocrisy that the media and the social conservatives discuss, it will be the further stigmatization of gays, and the behavior that led to the undercover operation that ensnared Sen. Craig, and a few months ago Florida State Rep. Bob Allen, who defended his actions using the "gay black panic defense" before resigning from the McCain presidential campaign. And who can forget former Congressman Mark Foley's IM's ;-). Conservative columnist Mark Hemingway at the National Review is suggesting that Craig may be misunderstood by writing,

... it’s hard to imagine that tapping your right foot in a bathroom stall loudly enough amounts to doing the homosexual hokey-pokey.

Hemingway does his best to deflect attention from the GOP by mentioning many Democratic sex scandals. The common thread in all of them, the individuals (Pres. Clinton, Gov. McGreevy, Rep. Frank) were hiding something, lying, and not being honest with themselves or their families. The difference between the Democrats and the GOP? The Democrats support civil rights for all Americans, so their short-comings were personal, not political. We can all relate to personal challenges, but only a special few elevate those to political hypocrisy.

Sen. Craig is using the "wide-stance in the stall defense", claiming unique bathroom habits that include tapping feet and waving hands underneath the stall. As a gay man, were I sitting in the next stall, I'd want him arrested too.

Openly, honest, happy gay people don't have to hide who they are and they have better places to enjoy their sexuality than public restrooms. The problem is social conservatives don't just want to stop public lewdness, they want to tell people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes.

There is a larger question the mainstream media will miss, too busy titillating, and that is the issue of the fluidity of sexuality, as well as concerns for older Americans who may not understand the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. Here are teaching moments, presented once again, that could allow mainstream media to go beyond the straight-gay, conservative-liberal, hypocrisy-integrity dichotomies and deal with the nuances of sexuality that could lead to greater understanding.

It should be noted that Sen. Craig was the subject of a targeted outing effort as recently as 2006. Michael Rogers at BlogActive, maintained he knew of, but never proved, several affairs Craig had with men, and shares two videos from 1982 when then-Rep. Larry Craig defended his character against rumors he was involved in a drug and sex scandal involving House pages. Rogers also writes:

The recent use of gays by the Republican Party during this election makes it necessary to focus on the Party and how it facilitates keeping gay men closeted.

Craig of course denied the affairs and continued to vote anti-gay.

Will Rogers be vindicated? Will hypocrisy matter to Idaho voters? Will we ever know why this took TWO MONTHS to become public? Will we ever get beyond our puritanical understanding of sexuality and learn to work with nature, not against her, and deal with reality, not innuendo and ideology?

Speaking honestly about our values on sexuality as progressives is a winning strategy for 2008 that Democrats need not shy away from. Let Giuliani and Romney waffle, and the others continue to stigmatize, its time for progressives to claim our values around sexuality, and they start from a place of honesty, integrity, and privacy.

 



Scott Swenson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
9 comments
UPDATE: Sen Craig Denies, Defies, Blames
A defiant Sen. Larry Craig just made a statement from Boise, Idaho, in essence declaring war on the Idaho Statesman for a eight months long witch hunt alleging that he is gay. With his wife by his side, he offered that it was his "state of mind" that made him plead guilty to lesser charges at the Minneapolis airport in hopes that the issue would go away. In retrospect, he said he should have consulted a lawyer, his staff, his family and friends, to whom he apologized. He repeated "I am not gay" at least four times during the short statement, took no questions, and announced that he has retained counsel to look into this matter and would announce his plans for his 2008 re-election campaign next month. It is a high stakes political gambit for a politician around whom rumors of homosexual activity have been circulating since the early 1980's, and have persisted throughout his service in Washington, to issue such a strong denial. Strategically, it buys him time and inserts his spin as the story grows ever larger early in the news cycle. But unless the Idaho Statesman, Roll Call Newspaper, and more importantly the Minneapolis undercover cop who filed the report are all collaborating, Sen. Craig's strategy buys him a couple of news cycles at best. In the end, actions in the men's room speak louder than any rumor, or any denial, no matter how strong. Stay tuned.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on August 28, 2007 - 4:01pm.
Admits to "failure"!
Another interesting piece of the Senator's statement is his admission that he "wasn't eager to share this failure, but I should have done so anyway." What failure? If he did nothing wrong, what is characterized as a failure? His decision to plead guilty to a lesser crime in hope of the larger matter going away? No. That he refers to as "a mistake." The failure is his moral lapse in judgement and degarding himself to seek a blowjob in a filthy airport bathroom while in the next breath, no doubt, decrying gays and lesbians for ruining civilization because they value committment.
Submitted by Partyschmarty on August 29, 2007 - 10:58am.
Craig's hypocrisy
Amen to you too, Scott! Very well said...I've received some heavy criticism on my blog today about not understanding gay sex. I'll blog about that tomorrow, but I'd love your thoughts. Somehow anonymous sex in public airport bathrooms doesn't meet the criteria for a moral, ethical sexual relationship. Rev. Debra W. Haffner
Submitted by Rev. Debra Haffner on August 28, 2007 - 4:01pm.
Public Sex
Rev. Haffner, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that those of us who have devoted our lives to fighting for gay civil rights have not been fighting for the right to have sex in public bathrooms. It's that simple. Public sex is associated (mostly) with gay people because historically people have had to hide their sexuality and thus certain places became known as meeting places. But public sex is not limited to gay people - the mile high club, office sex, heterosexual sex clubs and swingers, "massage parlors" and Madames are far more prevalent than places known for "homosexual activity." Rev. Haffner, you not only understand sexuality, you also understand that this generation is attempting to bring light where there has often been none, and help people live healthier sexual lives. That doesn't mean parroting straight culture, but we need not defend a hypocritical Senator's public licentiousness in the name of understanding how anonymous sexual encounters factor into sexuality. We do the cause of civil rights a disservice if we refuse to learn from our past and progress toward a future when honest, open sexuality is affirmed and allows people to live truthfully by being honest about who they are with themselves, their sexual partners, their families and thus demonstrate the responsibility that comes with the rights we seek.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on August 28, 2007 - 4:27pm.
On a side note, does Craig
On a side note, does Craig not understand the double (or triple) entendre of having a "wide stance" in a bathroom known for gay sex? Perhaps if he had been taking a wide, embracing stance on matters of homosexuality on the Senate floor rather than in the airport stall, he wouldn't be getting shredded as badly in the media right now. I'm beginning to wonder if the Republican party is against gay marriage just because it might cut into the hook up pool. Pretty soon we'll be calling it "Plato's Republican Party." More seriously though, if Senator Craig could just pick a side on this issue he could at least have some backing. Instead the man is trying to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, but searching for some same sex on the side? If he could muster up an ounce of spine, he could at least do what Gov. McGreevey did in New Jersey. I thought he handled his situation quite elegantly, given that it was coming out as gay and dealing with blackmail. It might be political suicide for Craig to admit to it in his state, but I would say his career is fatally wounded already- he might as well exit with some integrity.
Submitted by Ben on August 28, 2007 - 7:19pm.
"Many people understand
"Many people understand that risk provides certain thrill, that ordinary activities may have more excitement if one feels they are getting away with something no one else knows about. Add a public element, the risk of being caught, and it sends some people over the top. But there is something truly perverse about a married U.S. Senator using the power of his office to defeat civil rights for openly gay Americans" You have defined what I believe it means to be "gay"...it is the sex act and the sex act alone that really defines a gay person, for without it could they really be called gay? Saying it is perverse for him to defeat civil rights for gays is not relevant nor dependant upon how he gets his sexual kicks. The real issue here is that he is tried to use his clout as a Senator to get away with it, he is exposing his wife to the possiblilty of AIDS or other diseases and he obviously has sexual problems or can only be aroused by unusual sex acts. I am not anti-gay but I do not think that gay marriage is appropriate or needed. Most gays are promiscuous in the sense they do not stay with one partner. This is further evidence that the sex act is what they think defines themselves and as such is not a reason for marriage. The Senator is either gay or a "msm" ( a man who though not gay seeks sex with men). Maybe he has suffered loss of virility and needs more of a kinky kick to get going...who knows. At the end of the day his reaction to the arrest is the important thing and the lies after the fact do not help. He should step down and seek treatment if he wishes to stay married to his wife. He could also just come out of the closet if he feels that he is gay.
Submitted by sailor on August 29, 2007 - 10:37am.
Hey Sailor, Would you agree
Hey Sailor, Would you agree that regardless of orientation, people who grow up understanding that their sexuality is natural would be more likely to express it responsibly? And that for those who choose marriage, long purported to be a "civilizing influence on human nature" that people of different orientations can either be monogamous or not, that in fact the behavior is defined more by individual circumstances, as you suggest above, than by stereotyping an orientation? Is it possible from your perspective that the more people have healthy sexual relationships in their lives, the less likely they are to pursue unhealthy behaviors that bring risk to themselves and others?


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on August 29, 2007 - 10:59am.
response to sailor
honestly, it's not the sex act itself that defines a person's sexuality; gay, straight, bi or none of the above. i personally have always considered myself straight; even before i had even kissed a boy for the first time, i knew i was attracted to them. i have a friend who is physically attracted to both men and women, but considers herself to be gay because she only falls deeply in love with women. i know a few celebates who still consider themselves gay because they are only attracted to men, even if they never act on that attraction. so the sex act itself is not important at all in terms of sexual orientation. it's who you're attracted to, who pushes your buttons. and really, no one is all the way gay or all the way straight, no one. so i can see how people like senator craig, who live in this black and white world, could end up cracking eventually. black and white is too much pressure. i can see how being so closed off to the idea of shades of grey, especially in terms of sexuality, could confuse a man like craig and all his ilk. so the issue, again, is not the sex or his sexual orientation or whatever, it's his infidelity and disrespect of his wife. people who are open and in tune with their sexuality don't do dangerous and cruel stuff like this. they respect their own and their partners' sexuality and safety.
Submitted by akzidenzgrotesk on August 31, 2007 - 9:12am.
"I am not a gay"
... very Nixonesque of Craig to deny so frequently that he's gay. As a former Idahoan, I wish he'd just accept his sexuality and deal with it honestly. Maybe he doesn't understand that there's a lot of middle ground between only being attracted to women and only being attracted to men. At any rate, he's endangering his wife if he's having unprotected sex with other partners (unless he's not having sex with her anymore).
Submitted by Tyler on August 30, 2007 - 9:08am.