And suddenly I found how wonderful a sound Mike Crapo can be
Posted on August 28th, 2007 by John Mansfield
A Republican U.S. senator from Idaho pleaded guilty to what? Wait a second. One of Idaho’s senators is a Mormon. Come on, Google. “Mormon senators”. There they are: Harry Reid, D-Nevada; Robert Bennett, R-Utah; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Gordon Smith, R-Oregon; and Mike Crapo, R-Idaho. Not Craig. Whew! Clean as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Wait a second. A choir member was convicted of what?
» Filed Under Any
Comments
88 Responses to “And suddenly I found how wonderful a sound Mike Crapo can be”
Leave a Reply
Yeah, John M, I had the same reaction. I had another reaction: “another Republican/conservative gay scandal? Oh, brother.” (You may remember that there was a bad one with a Congressman from Florida in 2006 and then there was that evangelical in Colorado Springs).
What’s going on with the Tabernacle choir? I’m not aware of that issue.
Don’t forget that Senator Craig was one of two senate co-liasons for the Mitt Romney campaign! Of course, he’s (cough) “stepped down” now, so as not to bring a “distraction” to the campaign.
Actually, the whole story is literally “laugh out loud” hilarious. Craig’s foot and hand signals are very, very clear to anyone familiar with the protocol for such encounters, yet he insists on lying about the situation. Now he’s saying he has a “wide stance” when he’s on the toilet, and that he was trying to pick up a piece of paper on the floor (the police officer notes there was no paper on the floor, nor in Craig’s hand).
Geoff,
Not to mention that the male leader of the Young Republicans in Dallas, Texas, has stepped down after being charged with sexual assault on another man. http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/exec/view.cgi/84/6308
It’s a regular gay republican epidemic! The closet does terrible things to people.
Well, I still think people are innocent until proven guilty (although I don’t deny it looks really, really bad for Sen. Craig). I feel horrible for the man’s wife and kids. No time to laugh, just a lot of sadness all around.
The Deseret News reports this morning that an Oremite who was in the choir went skinny dipping with young boys at Diamond Fork Hot Springs and took photos. I went to that spring once and encountered nudists there. It’s interesting how the law and morals work that the photos are the big problem and not the naked swimming. My own sense is that is as it should be. No cameras in the sauna or the locker room.
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695204943,00.html
Geoff, there’s no “proven guilty” to be done. He pled guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, and paid a fine just over $500.00. He now claims that he hadn’t realized he should have had a lawyer (this is a senator, mind you), and that he just wanted to get it taken care of as expeditiously as possible.
It appears that he was hoping to keep it all hushed, and avoid publicity. Unfortunately for him, there are a number of media sources which are quite willing to “out” politicians who promote legal discrimination against gays, while secretly engaging in gay sex.
Geoff,
Thankfully you don’t have to worry about that, as he pleaded guilty to the charge in question.
Nick, I heard on Talk of the Nation (NPR News) that Larry Flynt has made it a personal crusade to investigate politicians who grandstand on moral issues, and out them if they are hypocritically engaging in moral degeneracy themselves.
Guys, you are definitely correct. The issue for me is not his guilty plea on the disorderly conduct charge, but instead whether or not he was guilty of trying to have gay sex in the bathroom. Look, I think the chance are 99 percent that Sen. Craig is guilty of the latter offense, but I try to hold out that 1 percent just in case, you know? I would try to keep that 1 percent for a Democrat as well as a Republican.
Seth, #8, politicians who talk the talk should walk the walk. I think we can all agree on that.
Isn’t being disorderly in a public restroom bad enough? You’re trying to catch your connecting flight to Detroit, you have a couple minutes to spare for the restroom, but what do you find? A disorderly senator. Thankfully there are policeman striving to uphold law and order.
I just saw the frontpage newsline blurb in USA Today.
I am thankful for Mike Crapo. I voted for him.
But I also voted for Larry Craig. As the public spotlight swirls around this man, I pray for him and his family. An excruciating time for work on heart issues.
I never thought I’d say this, but more power to Larry Flynt. Jesus forgave many people of their sins, but he had nothing but vitriol for hypocrites.
I think we should declare August 28 a Roman holiday.
Geoff, I understand your desire to give the benefit of the doubt. In this case, however, the only “reasonable doubt” on Craig’s part is to claim that the police officer was an evil democrat, who made up the entire story in order to harm the republican party.
(1) Craig stood in front of the officer’s stall for about two minutes, staring at the police officer between the door and the upright.
(2) Craig entered the stall and strategically placed his luggage in exactly the right position to block outside view of any activity which might happen near and under the stall divider.
(3) Craig used widely-recognized foot signals (tapping, and moving his foot into the other stall to touch the officer’s foot) to indicate a sexual encounter.
(4) Craig used widely-recognize hand signals, which actually indicate what activity he desired, and what role in that activity he preferred to take.
(5) The officer showed his police identification and directed Craig to leave the stall. Craig shouted “No!”, but after repeated directions, he got up and exited the stall without flushing or giving any indication that he had used the stall for its intended purpose.
(6) Before being convinced to peacefully leave the bathroom with the officer without raising a scene, Craig showed the officer his Senate identification, and asked “What do you think of that?” in an apparent attempt to intimidate or elicit special treatment.
(7) Craig, a United States Senator, pled guilty to a lesser charge.
I’m sorry, but I think reasonable doubt on whether Craig was soliciting gay sex has long since fled the scene.
I had a similar reaction to many here. I googled and found that Senator Craig is a Methodist. More disturbingly I found a number of posts along the lines of, “Oh, I sure hope this guy is Mormon!” What is wrong with people? What would cause someone to actively hope that this guy is Mormon in order to have more reason to hate Mormons?
I find hypocrisy among politicians extremely distasteful. The whole gay hypocrisy or adultery hypocrisy bugs me. The whole “everyone should conserve energy but me” hypocrisy of folks like Al Gore bug me too. (Even though I totally think Global Warming is a huge problem - but then I think sexual immorality is too) The one that gets me the most though is the whole earmark hypocrisy. Folks who talk about bloat and pork and then go get a bunch of such things for their district.
The problem is there are so many hypocrits on both sides of the aisle. My one claim to fame is that I predicted all of this prior to last year’s elections. The only hope is to vote out the hypocrites of either party. The problem is less parties than it is individuals.
You can read a copy of the police report here: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/craig_report.pdf.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, in most cases, but it sure looks like Senator Craig wasn’t in the stall to relieve himself the way the designers of the restroom intended. I’ll just leave it at that…
Any thoughts (besides mine) on the past tense of “to plead”? I wanted to use “pled,” but that’s counter to the newspaper style manuals. I was going to use “pleaded guilty” again in my last sentence to recycle the first sentence, but “pleaded” is so infelicitous to my ears that I disliked using it a second time, so I went with “convicted.”
http://www.cjr.org/resources/lc/pleadguilty.php
Nick, you don’t need to convince me with the gory details. It looks like everybody is crucifying Sen. Craig today, and as I said very clearly, it looks like he’s guilty. He’s a troubled man who has hurt his family and his constituents. He probably deserves what will be coming now, but I still try to have pity and compassion for him.
No thoughts on plead, but it looks like the choir member was a former, nor current, member of the choir.
Are Larry Flynt’s tactics to be considered a form of aversion therapy?
Today’s Idaho Statesman has a lengthy front page article on Craig, providing a lot more context.
“Unfortunately for him, there are a number of media sources which are quite willing to ‘out’ politicians who promote legal discrimination against gays, while secretly engaging in gay sex.”
Once again, I think you have overstated the facts here, Nick: There are a number of media sources which are quite willing to out politicians generally, regardless of hypocrisy. I would think that that would actually bother you, rather than give you the schadenfreude you seem to be enjoying here. Are you generally for people being involuntarily outed, or does the apparent hypocrisy here change the equation for you?
“Any thoughts (besides mine) on the past tense of “to plead”? I wanted to use “pled,” but that’s counter to the newspaper style manuals.”
Anecdotally, I will tell you that both “pleaded” and “pled” are used frequently in pleadings I encounter. I believe that both are correct. I personally use “pleaded” with much more frequency, but only because a partner I work for is adamant about it.
- Alvy Singer (Woody Allen), Annie Hall
Of course your compassion is admirable, Geoff. I also try to have compassion on a gay or bisexual man who is closeted, and apparently feels compelled to engage in public restroom sex as an attempt to fulfill his sexual needs.
On the other hand, I’ll be honest here. This man has one of the highest rankings of any senator by anti-gay groups such as Focus on the Family. He has consistently supported legal measures which were harmful to homosexuals. In fact, he voted against an earlier law to add sexual orientation to existing hate crimes legislation, and the bill failed by exactly one vote. That kind of public behavior, for a man who secretly engages in gay sex, makes it tough for me to be very sympathetic–especially when I am directly affected by his voting record.
Are you generally for people being involuntarily outed, or does the apparent hypocrisy here change the equation for you?
In almost all circumstances, I believe people have a right to privacy, and a right to choose whether to be “out” about their sexual orientation. Publicly outing a closeted gay man, in and of itself, is repugnant to me.
However, when a gay or bisexual man keeps his orientation secret and simultaneously uses his position of power to harm others for being gay (be it bashing, anti-gay legislation, etc.), then yes–I believe such a person not only “deserves” to be publicly outed, but in fact should be publicly outed. His hypocricy has become a direct threat to the safety and well-being of others, and should not be allowed to continue unchecked.
Geoff, the choir member (the one in Orem, not the Singing Senator) was former at time of conviction, but current at time of offense and arrest.
Just to stretch out the LDS connection in the most tenuous and unsubstantiated manner possible, the Idaho Statesman article says that Senator Craig “had a serious girlfriend in college; they split over religious differences. He declined to name her.” There were Mormon girls at the University of Idaho, so I’ll just say Craig’s girlfriend was one.
“His hypocricy has become a direct threat to the safety and well-being of others, and should not be allowed to continue unchecked.”
I assume, though, that even if he was as straight as an arrow, you would think he would be a “direct threat to the safety and well-being of others” simply on his legislative stances, right? Are you honestly implying that if a politician doesn’t see your way on gay issues, he or she is a direct safety threat?
I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE “pleaded.” Blech. We would never say “bleeded” and we would never say “readed” and we would never say “feeded” and just BLECH. Bled. Read. Fed. PLED. Though, I prefer “plead” to match the read/read spelling.
I have to say, re: the Craig thing, that I’m apparently way too naive to be alive. Because I can’t imagine undercover policemen waiting in bathrooms for this sort of thing to happen, or people doing this sort of thing in restrooms, or there being “widely recognized” (!!) hand signals to tell another person that you want to do this sort of thing in a restroom, and just… yeah. I feel unqualified to comment as a result.
(note that the first Google result for a search on “pleaded” turns up this site.)
jimbob, I think you unintentionally demean what I’m saying, when you phrase your question along the lines of “if a politician doesn’t see your way on gay issues”.
Suppose, for example, that a Missouri legislator fought to prevent the 1976 recission of Governor Boggs’ famous extermination order (yes, I know it came and went by executive order, but I’m using it as a hypothetical here). Wouldn’t you consider this legislator a threat to the safety and well-being of LDS in Missouri? I know I would. It’s not just a difference of opinion. It’s a matter of active efforts to do harm.
If a politician actively promotes legislative action against the interests of homosexuals, as opposed to merely holding a different political view, he or she is a threat to the safety and well-being of homosexuals. This isn’t extravagant language, either. There are both existing and contemplated laws which directly harm the safety and well-being of homosexuals. As such, it’s entirely fair for gays to neutralize the influence of such politicians, wherever possible–one might even argue they have a duty to do so. Exposing the hypocricy of a secretly gay senator who constitutes this kind of threat is not only well-deserved, but a very real act of self-defense.
I’m not gay, I just have a wide stance.< ?i>
I admit I did the same google search J. Mansfield did.
Sara, thank you for your naivete. It is refreshing in our increasingly depraved world.
Larry Craig is a laughing stock and unfit for positions of public trust, but I’m sickened by the self-righteous fascism of the left gay-movement, which has unfortunately been on display in this thread. Their sexual liberalism and respect for privacy gives way, every single time, to the notion that opposition must be crushed.
Craig and his enemies are all hypocrites.
Sarah, the officer was assigned to this duty because of actual complaints that this kind of behavior was going on in this particular bathroom at the Minnessota airport.
The kind of signals which Craig used have developed as part of a very specific culture—primarily that of closeted gay men (often married to women), who wish to engage in homosexual acts on an anonymous “discrete” basis, so as to avoid being caught. They are intended to be subtle, and relatively unknown to those outside that culture. Most straight men would be entirely unaware of why this creepy old man was tapping his foot and extending it to touch theirs in the adjoining stall, let alone why he was extending his finger to gesture under the partition. Most gay men (including the many gay men who find the idea of anonymous sex in public restrooms to be repulsive and dangerous) would immediately know what this man was seeking.
Brother Greenwood, you’re a lawyer. How do you plead on pleaded?
Nick Literski, look at it this way. The homosexuals that Senator Craig appears to be most familiar with are strangers he meets in restroom stalls. Doesn’t that make you more sympathetic for his politics?
I’ll make a deal with you, Adam. As soon as anti-gay conservatives and religionists stop using exploitation to “crush the opposition,” so will I.
John, I have to admit, you’ve got a point there.
That should be his next excuse–he was just doing legislative research!
Here’s a few relevant articles:
http://opinionjournal.com/best/
http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/143801.html
#33 Probably true, but so is every fallen human being that has ever walked the earth. In my experience, people who can’t acknowledge they have areas of personal hypocrisy are just puffed up with pride. I know that my schadenfreude at the downfall of Ted Haggard comes from a sinful place in my personality.
The “left gay-movement” is by no means monolithic in supporting the outing of closeted, hypocritical politicians. It’s a highly controversial practice. And for what it’s worth, you can’t blame the gays if Larry Craig falls from congress. He only has himself to blame for that.
You seem to confuse effective advocacy with fascism, Adam, although your rhetoric always makes me smile. Sound the alarm! Man the battle station or we shall all be crushed by the self-righteous fascist left-wing gays!
Nick, if someone started playing footsies with me through an adjacent stall, I would be liable to forget what Jesus would do in such a situation and remember what Porter Rockwell would do.
I must be tainted, because I have known about the foot tapping signal since I was in high school. I lived close to BYU and was warned about foot tapping in the restrooms. It’s sad that someone had to warn me about this type of behavior.
Brian, that’s a bit inflamatory. Nick hasn’t written anything in support of public lewdness.
Re: 30
Nick, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your hypo. Legislation which would make gay marriage difficult is not at all close to an extermination order, at least by any objective standard. Are state-ordered genocide and the refusal to allow gay marriage qualitavitely similar to you? (I really hope not.)
jimbob,
While I obviously feel gay marriage is very important, there are many other important issues at stake. One would be hate-crime legislation, which is closer to the extermination order example. In fact, I’m willing to bet there have been more people attacked and/or killed for being gay, than there have been LDS attacked and/or killed for being Mormon in Missouri.
Isn’t there a big difference Nick? It’s already illegal to assault homosexuals (or anyone else). The law in Missouri made it legal to kill Mormons. I find it a tad offensive you’d equate the two.
For the record I don’t oppose hate crime legislation because to me it is simply judging a crime in terms of intent and the law already does that quite often. (Consider when I kill someone by accident or if I was trying to kill them: same act, different intents) However I truly find annoying the extreme rhetoric on both sides that is misleading at best and often offensive. (i.e. on the one side the idea that not having hate crime legislation means you don’t mind murder or assault; the idea on the other that intents don’t matter)
“In fact, I’m willing to bet there have been more people attacked and/or killed for being gay, than there have been LDS attacked and/or killed for being Mormon in Missouri.”
The difference, of course, being that in this country, there are already laws on the books to prohibit killing homosexuals (or Red Sox fans, or those who like corn on the cob, or those that enjoy dinner theater, for that matter), while the extermination order appeared to suspend all murder laws as it related to mormons. In fact, it encouraged (required?) their genocide.
But we’re getting away from your initial position, which was that Craig was a direct threat to the physical safety of homosexuals. And I guess I’m still wondering what he did, besides opposing pro-gay legislation, that would be analogous to an extermination order (or would otherwise leave homosexuals fearing for their physical safety).
John, I was responding to this in comment #34:
My comment was not intended as a negative toward Nick. Rather, I was speaking my mind.
jimbob, if you look back, you’ll see that my original point was that individuals like Craig threaten the “safety and well-being” of homosexuals. It almost appears you are ignoring the “well-being” part, so as to say that nothing short of Craig shooting gay men in the head would matter much. Do you really think it’s okay, for example, that in 31 states out of 50, it’s perfectly legal to fire a homosexual from their job for being gay, when it has nothing at all to do with job performance?
Craig has done more than, as you put it, “oppose pro-gay legislation.” He has actively supported anti-gay legislation. The two are quite distinct, and both are heinous, especially for a closeted gay or bisexual man.
In the end, I find it sad that (as MikeInWeho subtly pointed out) conservatives probably won’t point their fingers at Craig for his bad behavior. Instead, they’ll point their fingers at homosexuals for “persecuting” Craig. On the other hand, if they do condemn Craig’s actions, they’ll do what they did with regard to Foley—shout a lot about how “all” homosexuals engage in such behavior.
Brian, I didn’t take your comment as an insult toward me (though I appreciate John being concerned). If anything, I was concerned that you appeared to condone violence in the event of a gay man making an unwanted sexual advance toward you.
Hmmm, I had a guy tap me on the foot a three or four times when my family was on vacation. I just assumed he was bored and was tapping to his favorite tune in his head. Interesting.
Also, he deserves what he gets. But I really feel for his family, especially his wife. How dare these men do this to their spouses. Have some guts and admit you’re homosexual instead of hiding and possibly ruining your life and theirs. I’d say the same thing about a politician that passed harsher tax laws, only to be discovered not paying his taxes.
It is kind of strange how these things seem to be cropping up more in the Republican party. It’s too bad people consider this single issue so important that these guys feel like they have to hide to keep their jobs.
I couldn’t agree more, jjohnsen. I think your tax example is a good one, albeit less personal.
I’ve never really agreed with hate crime legislation.
I mean, is it somehow more reprehensible to hit a guy with a baseball bat because he’s gay than it is to hit him because he’s homeless?
I just don’t see it. This is purely fad politics.
I rank it right up there with those moronic charging-juveniles-as-adults laws.
Nick, I don’t condone violence, but I also don’t condone unwanted sexual advances in a restroom. Sorry, the thought of someone putting the moves on me while I’m using the restroom gives me a severe case of the willies.
“Do you really think it’s okay, for example, that in 31 states out of 50, it’s perfectly legal to fire a homosexual from their job for being gay, when it has nothing at all to do with job performance?”
Probably I don’t, but I also think it’s unfair to fire someone for being a Red Sox fan, a corn on the cob eater, or because they enjoy dinner theater, assuming the work quality is good. And in 50 of 50 states, you can fire someone for all of those things (and so many more) without violating the law. As a result, whether I think it’s “okay” or not is not particularly relevant to whether I think there ought to be a law prohibiting it. Not everyone can be a protected group.
But again, you’re ducking the question. What exactly do you think that Craig did or has done that has endangered the safety of homosexuals? I’m just looking for one concrete example. Otherwise, I’m going to have to conclude that you’re just happy he was outed because you disagree with him politically.
Thankfully there are policeman striving to uphold law and order.
I can’t wait to see this “ripped from the headlines” story on one of the actual Law and Order series…
I also think it’s unfair to fire someone for being a Red Sox fan
Au contraire. It’s almost mandatory to fire Red Sox fans when they dare come out into the open!
There’s an interesting article about Senator Craig and his relationship with the Right on Salon.com today. It’s worth checking out.
BTW, I think it’s a stretch to make comparisons between the Missouri extermination order and contemporary American social politics. However, it is fair to point out that there are still numerous countries in the world where homosexuality is a capital offense. Iran executes gays on a fairly regular basis, for example.
#56 — Mike, yep, when we invade Iran, I hope the liberals who support gay rights will be cheering!!
General comment: count me as somebody who opposes hate crime legislation — don’t think it’s necessary. Guys who beat up gay people should go to jail for assault, just like guys who beat up straight people.
I’ve been forced out of white-collar jobs because of my ethnicity twice (I was too white and was told so in different ways). Florida is a right-to-work state, so there was nothing I could do about it. Even went to go see a labor attorney, and he told me, “yeah, you can fight it, and I’ll charge you $25,000, and you might win, but it will take years and you probably won’t recover your $25,000.” It’s not right, but it’s reality. Unlikely that gays can expect that situation to change much. Personally, I favor laws against job discrimination based on sexual orientation, but in reality there’s not much you can do if you’re fired. Especially in right to work states.
I haven’t seen any evidence yet that Sen. Craig favored legislation that endangered gays. But I’m willing to be convinced.
Jjohnsen, #49, I think you might consider the possibility that Sen. Craig was simply a bisexual man who thinks homosexuality is wrong morally but did not know how to control his urges. I linked up above a long story in the Idaho Statesman in which Sen. Craig and his wife sat for a surreal interview in which a man is taped saying Sen. Craig made advances to him. Sen. Craig’s wife heard these claims with teary eyes but stood by her man. Sen. Craig is apparently happily married and has three kids and nine grandkids.
I have known a lot of people with same-sex attraction during my life, and there is a continuum of sexual attraction. There are people who are born only attracted to the opposite sex and there are people who are born only attracted to the same sex. And there are a lot of people in between. Sen. Craig was, I believe, somewhere in between. So, saying he should “have some guts and admit he is homosexual” seems to me an overly simplistic way of looking at it, especially if he is happily married. Would it be more honorable for him to abandon his aging wife? Or is it more honorable for him to try to work through his feelings? Just like in divorce, it varies from case to case. It is in theory possible that he has been trying to control his homosexual urges and that he simply slipped up. We probably have no idea and no way to judge as we sit outside the relationship with limited information.
jimbob,
I’ve answered your question several times, and I’ve also pointed out that you are artificially narrowing the question. You refuse to acknowledge the answer, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Your snarky comment about “having to conclude” that I’m “just happy he was outed because I disagree with him politically” is completely unfounded, and betrays where your real concern here. So have fun, wave your conservative flag, defend a hypocrite who got caught trying to have anonymous bathroom sex while condemning homosexuality, and above all, blame the gays for it.
My political take:
Craig will either resign eventually or not run again. This kind of stuff is is political suicide in deep red states. If he was in a deep blue state like Barney Franks he would apologize for his conduct and the voters would forgive him. Not in Idaho though.
His “Apology” was pathetic. Repub primary voters will walk away in droves.
Nick,
Are you equally guilty of making an artificially broad statement to begin with given that you refuse to defend the more inflamatory aspect of it?
Geoff B,
I believe that the senator has three step-children. Well, technically he has adopted the children that are his wife’s from a previous marriage.
This whole Sen. Craig thing is not that funny to me (I don’t enjoy somebody else’s suffering), but THIS is funny:
Progress Report Cont’d [Jonah Goldberg]
I thought readers would like to know that all day long I’ve been using public restrooms — at rest stops and gas stations no less (just ask Jim “stall for two, please” McGreevey if you don’t catch my drift) and I’ve employed the widest stance practical. I’m 6′3” and so far not even a nibble. Sure, some of my more harsh detractors might say that I’m not that big a catch in the eyes of the closeted bathroom lurking gay community (”Oh you’re a big catch” — The Couch). But let me tell you something, from the ankles down — the only relevant anatomy in this context — I am caliente!
At a Chevron just outside Reno, I even toe-tapped out a few bars from La Cage while I waited for my man-bait kicks to ensnare their prey. But I got nada.
random john,
My statement was only “artificially broad” or “inflammatory” to those who refuse to believe there is a problem with gays being targeted by criminals for their sexual orientation. I’ve already pointed, repeatedly, to Craig’s opposition to including sexual orientation in existing hate crimes laws which already protect other specially-targeted groups. Of course, those who find “Larry the Cable Guy” insightful will argue that this makes Craig a great American hero.
I wonder if Craig’s position on the issue may have changed if, instead of being arrested by an undercover police officer, he’d been severely beaten by some homophobic freak.
There are that many homophobic freaks out there, huh Nick?
Nick:
Four points:
1. I’m not now, nor have I anywhere on this thread, defended Sen. Craig. I think he’s guilty as hell (with apologies to Geoff’s wait-and-see approach and to those who would prefer I didn’t use the phrase “guilty as hell”).
2. I have no conservative flag to wave. I’m not sure I even consider myself a conservative. I’m not sure where your rhetoric is coming from.
3. You’ve not answered my question, or I’d stop asking it. As a result, my guess is that what you mean to say instead of “threat to safety of homosexuals” is “political threat to several gay-based legislative initiatives.” If those two are synonymous to you, there may be a perception problem at play here.
4. I think it’s time for me to bow out on this issue; even I am getting bored with it.
Sarah (29):
I recently argued about someone’s 5th amendment rights, and the trascript reads more or less as follows:
Me: He can’t refuse to answer the question; he’s already pleaded guilty.
Other guy: But just because he pleaded guilty doesn’t mean that he can’t still incriminate himself.
Me: Yes it does. He can’t be held guilty for the same crime twice–if he’s pleaded guilty there, there’s no right against self incrimination.
Other guy: I’m not a criminal lawyer and neither are you. You can’t tell me for sure what exactly he did when he pleaded guilty.
I hope you enjoyed that. Not a “pled” in the transcript.
jimbob,
There you go again, with your #3. The simple fact is that you refuse to see hate crimes against homosexuals as a “threat to the safety of homosexuals.” Therefore, you don’t see anything threatening about Craig’s political activity on the subject. The “perception problem” resides in your apparent inability to believe that anyone could disagree with your flippant dismissal of the issue. Frankly, I’m insulted by your repeated accusation that I am somehow “inventing” a safety issue in order to hide political disagreement. Craig apparently believes that homosexuals–a group frequently targeted for violence by others–don’t deserve the same protections which other targeted groups have under the law. He acts on that belief, by actively opposing the inclusion of sexual orientation in existing hate crimes legislation. That makes him a threat to the safety of homosexuals. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
jimbob: Aaaaaaaah!
Wow, not a lot of compassion for the sinner out there. Sen. Craig sounds like a man who on occasion succumbs to his particular weakness to the delight of those who don’t believe in the concept of sin. If you believe someone has sinned and was caught that is not a time to rejoice whether you are gay or not.
Personally I don’t think the term hypocrit is useful. I’ve know many people who smoke and tell others not to smoke or even legislate same. They may be technical hypocrits, but who cares, they want to do what is right and like most of us (though maybe not the bloggers here) fall short. I just hope some of you are not involved in judging me when I get to the bar and that the Lord is as merciful as the scriptures imply.
I also pray for Sen. Craig and his family that this was only a moment of weakness and that he can fully repent and be forgiven. I also believe its possible that Sen. Craig was targeted because of his strong stance, but I hope this isn’t true either.
Heli, I agree with much of what you say, but please, no more talk of Sen. Craig’s “stance”.
True, and I believe it was his wide stance he was targeted for, not his strong one.
Brother Greenwood, you’re a lawyer. How do you plead on pleaded?
I’ve seen it both ways, sir. I think both are proper usage if I recall. But I’m not a criminal lawyer.
Heli, your point is well taken regarding compassion. I do feel compassion for Craig’s family, who surely are embarassed by this episode (especially his wife, who had to stand by his side for the cameras while he further compounded his lie. While my comments haven’t shown it, I also have compassion for Craig, in the sense that I know what it’s like to secretly be a gay man, in spite of strongly held beliefs and the expectations of others.
On the other hand, I’ll admit it’s hard for me to feel compassion for a man who has scored political points by fighting against equal rights for homosexuals, all the while hiding that he is engaging in gay sex (or at least attempting to do so). Even now that he’s been caught, he lacks the basic integrity to just admit the truth. It’s hard for me not to have contempt for Craig, in this sense. Even Ted Haggard had enough decency to admit the truth, after he was outed by the gay prostitute he had repeatedly hired.
“Jesus forgave many people of their sins, but he had nothing but vitriol for hypocrites.”
Yes, and on at least one occasion he challenged the “sinless” among them to cast the first stone.
Larry Craig is largely a victim of circumstance. Yes, a stronger individual would accepted and loved themselves as gay rather than lived a hypocritical lie, but such strength against Utah-Idaho sickening conformity is extremely rare. While not Mormon, Larry Craig is a sorry phenomenon that occurs far to often in churches such as ours that deny some are born gay and cause such souls to deny who and what they are if they wish to remain within the faith of their fathers. A left handed person might as well pretend to be right handed. In effect active gay Mormons, Evangelicals, etc seem to often convince themselves that they’re not gay, but that sex with other men is just something they sometimes do, sad for the gay individual living a lie, sad for their families that were never meant to be and sad for the church that pressures its gay members to live these lies. But G-d is just and the shameful bullying leaders of these churches will get their comeuppance. G-d bless Larry Craig and his family as they sort this mess out. May G-d curse the real criminals in these matters.
Yeah, cause we all know the sex offender was really the victim in this whole thing.
Tossman,
So you don’t think Craig’s denial of his homosexuality and the resulting consequences have anything to do with growing up and succeeding in super homophobic Idaho? You don’t think that such a person likely got caught in the trap of living a lie to get along and rise as far as he did? You don’t think Idaho church leaders (not just LDS) had anything to do with this guy’s circumstances?
As sad as Craig’s soliciting sex in a public toilet is, I just don’t see it as even 50% his fault. In the public lie he is pressured to live, Craig doesn’t have the better option of going to a gay club, etc to meet others. Some may say that Craig was weak for conforming to such a lie get on and get along, but how many of us really have the strength to buck against the tide when it’s against us?
The LDS church I grew up in encouraged thousands of Larry Craigs to take his path of denial. Where are those church leaders now when their past counsel ends up causing disaster after disaster like this? They can pretend to be pure as the driven snow while decrying gay sinners, but the reality is Larry Craig’s clothes aren’t as muddy as theirs. I feel bad for this guy, hated from all sides either for what he is or the lie he lived and still clings to.
Sometimes I think I must be the only active green thinking profile person left in the church. All the other open minded greens on these boards are usually less active or no longer LDS. No wonder LDS theme art, music, etc sucks so bad.
Steve EM, sorry, but you have no idea whether Larry Craig was “born g-y” or had a g-y experience in college and has since decided to continue to experiment or whether he was molested as a kid by a man and therefore has his s-xuality screwed up. As I say above, there is a continuum of human s-xuality, from people who are only attracted to the opposite s-x to people who are purely attracted to the same s-x. Larry Craig was probably somewhere in between.
The fact that he has stayed married yet apparently had furtive s-xual encounters — while saying he is “not g-y” indicates to me that he knows homos-xuality is wrong but can’t control it.
So, in your messed up world, LDS leaders should not counsel people with conflicting emotions to try their best to overcome these emotions? If a guy has a hereditary problem with alcohol, we should tell him to “drink up?” Or should we encourage him to try to overcome his weaknesses and offer him as much love and support as we can? Same with dr-gs, g-mbling, etc. How about ad-ltery — if you have the desires, you should just “be yourself?”
Sorry, but such claims are clearly bunk. People are responsible for their own actions, and Church leadership should follow the counsel of the many, many prophets who have made it clear that homos-xuality is wrong. The responsibility of Church leadership is to do what the handbook and the prophets say: offer love and support, counseling if possible and encourage people to overcome their weaknesses. If, at the end of the day, people cannot control themselves and make mistakes, well, there are other opportunities to repent and try again. God will forgive and forgive.
Steve EM,
Everyone has to learn to suppress socially unacceptable impulses to one degree or another. That doesn’t give us the excuse to become deviants. (Having anonymous sex in public restrooms fits the bill for deviance in my book).
So you don’t think Craig’s denial of his homosexuality and the resulting consequences have anything to do with growing up and succeeding in super homophobic Idaho?
No. But that may be because I prefer the technical definition of the term ‘homophobia’ to the modern politically correct definition.
The word ‘homophobia’ was coined by clinical psychologist George Weinberg, who defined it thus:
“Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior, flight, or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it.”
People today throw the term around to mean anybody who doesn’t approve of homosexuality. If I were homophobic, according to the correct definition and even my liberal professors in college, I would have an irrational fear of homosexuals- specifically, fear of a homosexual making sexual advances toward me, causing me to avoid them at all costs.
I don’t think the majority of Americans give a rat’s behind if somebody is gay. I don’t see a widespread morbid or irrational dread in the general populous of Idaho, let alone a “super homophobia.”
You’re using the wrong word, my friend. You’d be better off using ‘heterosexism’ or ‘homonegativity.’ Yeah, those are real words.
Now to your point about Craig not having any other outlet for getting his man-fix- No gay clubs in Idaho? What a lame excuse! There are several well-known gay clubs and hangouts here in Salt Lake City. There was a gay club right across from my apartment on 200 south when I lived on the west side.
Another thing, senators don’t spend a whole lot of time in their home states anyway. You mean to tell me there was nowhere for him to go in the Washington D.C. area? That he was basically forced to solicit anonymous sex in an airport bathroom? Come on.
…or whether he was molested as a kid by a man and therefore has his s-xuality screwed up.
Please. Where is the scientific evidence that child sexual abuse causes homosexuality?
The fact that he has stayed married yet apparently had furtive s-xual encounters — while saying he is “not g-y” indicates to me that he knows homos-xuality is wrong but can’t control it.
That’s a pretty strong assumption on your part, Geoff. Are you aware that Larry Craig, who is in his 60s, never married until 9 years ago? Are you aware that stories of this man’s gay sexual encounters pre-date his marriage?
If a guy has a hereditary problem with alcohol, we should tell him to “drink up?” Or should we encourage him to try to overcome his weaknesses and offer him as much love and support as we can? Same with dr-gs, g-mbling, etc.
Sounds like you’re falling for the newly-fashionable “homosexuality is a birth defect” rhetoric. Just so you know, this idea didn’t come from revelation to LDS leaders. It came from anti-gay protestant “ministries,” who have relied on discredited “experts.” Unable to sustain their previous position (and the previous LDS position) that there is no genetic influence on homosexuality, they have turned to the game of telling gays that their orientation is the result of defective biology, and that they must either force themselves to marry a member of the opposite sex, or be celibate for life.
Actually, prior allegations suggest that Craig’s chosen venue in the Washington D.C. area was Union Station (a train station), rather than any of the very popular gay bars in the city.
Nick, I’m not really interested in getting into a “what causes a person to become gay” debate. As you may know, I grew up in San Francisco and had a gay roommate in college and still have many gay friends. Some of them “always felt that way.” Some of them experimented and decided it was just a lifestyle choice but they could go back to heterosexuality if they wanted. Some of them were molested by men when they were young and it (in their own words) affected their sexuality in perverse ways.
Nick, given your orientation and your feelings about the Church, I just don’t think we’re going to find common ground on this subject. My position is exactly what I feel to be the Church’s position, which is that homosexuality is something that some people are born with (others are not). Some people can control it, some people can’t. In all cases, we should encourage people to follow the commandments, which means if you don’t feel comfortable marrying somebody of the opposite sex, you should choose celibacy. I don’t expect you to like these rules, Nick, but there they are.
As for Sen. Craig, I really don’t know where he is on the sexuality continuum, and you probably don’t either. But from what little I have been able to gather, he is happily married to a woman who is in her 50s or 60s. I don’t think him making a choice to abandon his wife and hanging out in gay bars the rest of his life is more admirable than staying married and trying to control his urges. But that’s just me.
An editorial in today’s Washington Post says that Senator Craig married two years after 1982.
Actually, Geoff, we don’t disagree much at all on your #81. I don’t believe there is a single explanation for all manifestations of homosexuality on the planet.
Some of them were molested by men when they were young and it (in their own words) affected their sexuality in perverse ways.
Now, when you state it this way, I agree entirely. I don’t believe the evidence supports that being molested by a man makes a boy grow up to be gay. On the other hand, there is no question that child sexual abuse can dramatically affect one’s “sexuality,” as opposed to sexual orientation.
In all cases, we should encourage people to follow the commandments, which means if you don’t feel comfortable marrying somebody of the opposite sex, you should choose celibacy. I don’t expect you to like these rules, Nick, but there they are.
I actually have no real issue with those rules, Geoff, for those who choose to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The LDS church could require all its members to wear purple shirts, for all I care, and this would be entirely acceptable for those who choose to grant LDS leaders authority in their personal decisions. I only take issue when leaders of a particular faith try to enforce that faith’s rules of conduct upon those who do not choose to delegate such authority. In other words, it’s perfectly fine for the LDS church to expect you to live by these rules. It’s not at all proper for the LDS church (or its members, acting under counsel from LDS leaders) to attempt to require me to live by these rules.
You are correct, of course, that neither of us knows the precise nature of Larry Craig’s sexual orientation. Only he knows that. I would merely point out that raging heterosexual men rarely attempt to solicit fellatio in public restrooms.
As for what choices Larry Craig makes in regard to his future relationships, only he can really answer that question. For some poeple in his situation, it would be best to repair the marriage and forever abstain from adultery. For others, it would be best to end the marriage, allowing both partners to find greater happiness.
I suppose I would fit what you’ve condemned as “abandon[ing] his wife and hanging out in gay bars the rest of his life.” I made that choice after 18 years of “staying married and trying to control [my] urges.” Unlike what appears to be the case for Larry Craig, I never committed adultery. I reached a point, however, where I could no longer maintain that lifestyle. Had I continued to do so, I would likely have attempted suicide by now. Having made the choice I did, however, I am now in a much more mutually satisfying (emotionally, as well as physically) relationship, and I am no longer shackling my former wife to a life without that same joy.
For what it’s worth, the idea gays “spend their lives” in bars is almost quaint. While I can’t speak for Idaho, I happen to be sitting here looking at the L.A. G & L Center’s autumn catalog. Their Senior Program lists Bingo, Computer Classes, Senior Exercise, Writing Class, and various other activities just for the geriatric set. While I’m a couple decades away from those activities, the Structured Investment Products seminar looks interesting.
None of us here knows Craig, or anything about the true state of his marriage. For reasons I can’t quite explain, I find myself feeling sorry for him no matter how this turns out.
Mike, as you probably know, I was just using some rhetorical flourishes. What I wrote was:
“As for Sen. Craig, I really don’t know where he is on the sexuality continuum, and you probably don’t either. But from what little I have been able to gather, he is happily married to a woman who is in her 50s or 60s. I don’t think him making a choice to abandon his wife and hanging out in gay bars the rest of his life is more admirable than staying married and trying to control his urges. But that’s just me.”
As I’ve said many times, I have lots of gay friends, and only the younger ones spend much time in bars (South Beach is, as you know, a gay mecca). Some of them are in committed relationships and don’t drink, so the idea they would go to a bar is ludicrous. The point I’m trying to make, and I do think it is a very good point, is that there is a possibility that Sen. Craig is married because he WANTS to be married and that he truly loves his wife but that he is tempted (we all are tempted by something) to engage in furtive sexual encounters, and he slipped up and made a very bad mistake.
But I am glad to see you have summoned up some compassion for Sen. Craig. We all need a little bit of that.
I actually agree with you, Geoff. The possibility you describe represents the likeliest scenario, although as you said: Who knows??
South Beach???! What a scene. It makes West Hollywood look like Orem. The Delano is a great place to spend a long weekend though. Check out the lobby sometime.
More on the pleaded/pled question:
From the USA Today:
“Craig *pleaded* guilty to disorderly conduct on Aug. 1, and while he has since said he did nothing wrong, the episode has roiled the Republican Party and produced numerous calls for him to step down.”
The reaction of my wife, who is a fairly conservative republican (although she opposes the war and opposes Bush for that reason), when Senator Craig’s situation came on the news tonight, was, simply, “Leave the poor man alone.” That is my reaction too, as a moderate to liberal democrat.
This is one of the few times I am in agreement with Pat Buchanan (and Senator Dodd). http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22186
I wish Senator Craig and his family well.