Larry Craig's so-called hypocrisy

I completely agree with Jonah Goldberg that it's a cheap and unpersuasive argument that Larry Craig is a hypocrite for voting against gay marriage while cruising for sex in men's rooms. What does one have to do with the other? I would certainly hope that gay marriage advocates disapprove of dirty old men (young ones too) prowling in public bathrooms for sex. Strictly speaking, wouldn't Craig be a hypocrite if instead of proposing sex with Officer Mancuso, he'd proposed marriage? Here's Jonah:

Moreover, aren’t there worse and more accurate labels for someone in Craig’s situation? Self-hater, fool, sex-addict, adulterer, pervert, sinner: all of these come to mind. But the problem for the left is that hypocrisy is the politically useful charge while archaic concerns like sin, perversion or adultery are at minimum problematic. The left doesn’t – as a matter of passion or strong principle – really mind gay cruising, they mind people who really disapprove of gay cruising. If Craig’s personal conduct really offended liberals, Jim McGreevey – a seedier man personally than Craig by any conventional standard – wouldn’t be a hero. But, no, it’s Craig’s political conduct, not his personal conduct, that offends the left. And so, they take up the well-worn hypocrisy cudgel not to condemn cruising bathrooms, but for voting against gay marriage.

UPDATE: I know as a political matter, it's a distinction without a difference, but I still can't quite shake the idea that the word "hypocrite" doesn't accurately describe what Larry Craig is. I take it for granted that he's a closeted homosexual in deep denial. Does his voting against various gay-rights measures necessarily make him a hypocrite? Suppose he sincerely believes that homosexuality is immoral, and has been fighting for years to conquer his desires. And suppose that he fails from time to time. I have a closeted friend in Courage who fits this profile. If he were a legislator, would he be a hypocrite for opposing gay rights legislation? Or would he be a hypocrite of another sort for voting for it, even though he believed homosexuality to be intrinsically immoral? This is complicated.

I think the way you see this depends on how you see homosexuality. Is it morally positive or at least morally neutral, and an inherent and ineradicable part of one's identity that must in no case be resisted or denied, only accepted? Or is it a morally negative condition that may be ingrained psychologically or biologically, but which has to be controlled and suppressed? If the latter, then Larry Craig might be nothing more than a poor, weak sinner (as well as a lawbreaker, which is why I think he should resign). It's hard to know for sure absent deeper knowledge of his own thoughts and motivations, which we're not likely to have.

Look, I don't have any emotional investment in whether or not Larry Craig is ultimately a hypocrite. I think he's a messed-up man, and that he shouldn't be senator. But I do think the word "hypocrite" is tossed around rather too easily these days, and it's worth stopping to think what we really mean by it when we use it.

Thought experiment: What if Larry Craig had advocated strong laws against drunk driving, but was secretly an alcoholic who every now and then got behind the wheel? What if he got picked up by police driving while intoxicated? Would his votes for drunk driving legislation be the work of a hypocrite? Or would they be the expression of what a weak and sinful man thought was morally right, even though he couldn't live up to his ideals consistently?

UPDATE.2: I agree with Ross that if Larry Craig is forced out by the Republican Party, so should David Vitter be, and for the reasons Ross cites.