Larry Craig's so-called hypocrisy

As a New Jersey liberal, I assure you, Jim McGreevey is not a hero in any way, shape, or form.

And while your and Goldberg's argument might have a thin reed of truth regarding gay marriage (very thin, IMHO), Craig voted against A LOT of other gay rights bills -- including being the deciding vote against a bill to ban discrimination against gays in the workplace.

I guess with the Ethics Committee investigation, what goes around comes around ...

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

There's a reason why the hypcrisy cudgel is "well-worn," you know. It's because the right is so brimming to the rim with gay, closet-case hypocrites.

The problem many of us on the left have with Craig and people like him isn't so much that he was trying to get his. It that if it wasn't for him and people like him, there's be no problem with a successful man being openly gay. It's because of people like him that there's even a "tearoom" subculture to begin with. The fact that he is a closet case, a liar AND a hypocrite are all contributing factors as to why he was trolling for tricks in an airport restroom.

Agreed, Larry. Mr. Craig is simply a hater of his own skin. It is not just his opposition to the "homosexual agenda", to use the Right Religious folks' words; but his abject denial of being associated with anything that would be considered to be gay.

To me, his marrying late in life and no kids of his own is another tipoff to the denial of his own inclination.

petros

What is the difference in opposing gay rights and gay marriage while trolling men's restrooms for sex and being a draft dodger who wants other peoples' sons (and daughters) to fight a war? Nothing. It is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Trying to pass this off as some kind of leftish wimpery is almost as bad as the act itself. If a public official who trolls for sex had the least bit of sympathy for someone with what most regard as a sexual perversion, most of us would have a little sympathy for him (or her)when outed. Right now, I prefer to spend my sympathy on people more deserving.

First, please introduce me to the person who believes McGreevey is a hero. From what I can tell, in the gay community McGreevey is greeted almost uniformly with disgust and distrust. I've not met a single progressive who veiws hims as a hero. Not that Jonah would bother to know that.

Secondly, no one said marriage rights and equality would stop people from having sex in bathrooms. It hasn't stopped straight men from using porn and prostitutes, having affairs, or going to strip bars. But having marriage rights and equality would lessen the need for people like McGreevey and Craig to seek out such situations because they could pursue gay relationships in public. If, after that, they choose to continue to prowl bathrooms, that's another question and maybe they are like your gay Republican friend who likes the "thrill" of tearoom sex.

It is likely that if Craig were open about being gay and it was something he could accept, he would not so easily dismiss the need for gay rights legislation including marriage. Of course, we will never know that.

I'll never forget what he said: "For some, that smell is nectar."

Please do not confuse your friend's fetishism with the motivation of all gay people for relationships. Your friend is no different than people who get off on the smell of leather or the feeling of ropes binding them as they couple, or no different from a food or foot fetishists - gay or straight.

Craig is not a hypocrite because he is a fetishist. He is a hypocrite because he is gay (or at least enjoys having sex with men), and he actively seeks to make being gay criminal, or at least deserving of punishment.

I don't know enough about him. I'd have to hear what he's had to say about gay sex & homosexuals before I could call him a hypocrite. Thus far, I've only heard him say, "I'm not gay." I'm not ready to believe that because he's a Republican from Idaho that he's said nasty things about homosexuals or homosexual relationships.

He could be against gay marriage and all for gay relationships. He could be against gay marriage and all for gay sex in bathrooms with strangers. I agree with Sigaliris. If he's publicly condemned gay sex then he's a hypocrite.

I thought that Goldberg was better informed than to say that McGreevey is a hero to the left.

Well, I think "he's a hypocrite" is just the first thing one might say without giving much thought to what's going on. Don't we love thinkers who write because they examine and explore situations from different angles and come to conclusions that we might not think of?

Why don't lesbians hang out in public restrooms seeking anonymous sexual gratification? Seriously. I think this has a lot to do with the male sex drive uninhibited by social norms.

Pity my link to the retrographic cartoon, where woman was reassuring another she was wasn't a slut, just acting like a man, was removed by the powers that be after residing for some time on the Richard Bottoms thread yesterday. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. ;-)

I've added the following comments to the main entry:

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?

Rod,

"Look, I think Craig is a sleaze who should lose his job."

So do we, Rod.

"I just don't understand why he's a hypocrite."

How can you not "understand' it, Rod?

"Anyway, I don't believe that if we had full gay marriage and acceptance of homosexuality, that the tearoom culture would end."

Well, perhaps its a supply and demand thing. Seems a lot of heterosexual, married men like to get their rocks off and they find that accommodation in the cans. Perhaps if heterosexual, married men stopped going to the bathrooms for BJs, they might stop.

"For some, that smell is nectar."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've told that story before. I have many, well not "friends", let's just call them 'acquaintances', most but not all of them heterosexual, most of them married, who likewise find "that smell" to be like ambrosia. They return and return and return to dirty, filthy stinking sordid washrooms to get their kicks. Some say their wives won't do "it", so they know where to go and what foot to tap.

These lovely anecdotes of ours, Rod, yours and mine, don't add much to the debate, but I'd bet good money that they are both true. I know mine is, and I have no reason to doubt yours isn't. The point is men - both heterosexual and homosexual - sometimes do nasty, icky things. Gosh, some women do too. But my gay friends (and your too, evidently) admit they like it. The gay guys are at least honest enough to admit they're gay. The heterosexuals who seek this kind of thrill are not, and in the case of the heterosexual Mr. Craig, he passes laws to punish gay people. That is why he is a hypocrite.

"They went for the dirty thrill of the thing."

Rod, the exact same thing could be said of Mr. Craig - an avowed heterosexual. You see, it doesn't just apply to gays.

"Is public sex in bathrooms and parks common in places that are welcoming of gays (e.g., NYC, San Francisco, Provincetown, Key West)?"

Once again, Rod, why just ask that question about places that are welcoming of gays. I went looking for sex in washrooms, and it took me less than 13 seconds to find a 7 minute video of a heterosexual couple going into the bathroom of a club and having sex - nasty, dirty ,filthy, disgusting, perverted sex. In the BATHROOM. Maybe the smell was like nectar to them, too. And they were so "proud" of it, they videotaped themselves.

"Why don't lesbians hang out in public restrooms seeking anonymous sexual gratification?"

Rod, I've got a surprise for you, but ya hafta promise you won't tell anybody else - it'll be our little secret - SOME lesbians DO!

"I think this has a lot to do with the male sex drive uninhibited by social norms."

Ah, NOW you're getting warmer. Women need a resaon to have sex; men just need a place.

"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?"

That you even have to ask says a lot, Rod.

"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?"

Yes. He would be one too.

"Is it [homosexuality] morally positive or at least morally neutral"

It can be morally positive (as in loving, committed adult relationships) or it can be morally negative (as in exploitative, coerced, harmful relationships), but in and of itself - the state of being attracted to another of the same sex - it is morally neutral. HOW we treat one another - the 'Do unto others' command - is what determines morality. In fact, Scriptures tell us it is the "sum of the laws and the prophets".

"and an inherent and ineradicable part of one's identity that must in no case be resisted or denied, only accepted?"

Ask the same question of heterosexuality, Rod, and you'll have your answer. Yes, it's an inherent and ineradicable part of one's identity. Isn't YOUR heterosexuality that, Rod? Do you resist your heterosexuality? Do you deny it? (I'm not sure why youwould.) Or do you just accept the fact that you are attracted to the opposite sex?

"Or is it a morally negative condition that may be ingrained psychologically or biologically, but which has to be controlled and suppressed?"

Not any more than heterosexuality is, Rod.

"If the latter, then Larry Craig ..."

Mr. Craig says he is heterosexual. Please stop calling him a homosexual. His actions, however, how he treats his sexual partners, now THAT is what will determine if his sexuality is morally positive, negative or neutral. Now let's see, cheating on the wife? Definitely a morally negative act. Seeking anonymous, furtive, 'dirty' sex. Probably not so positive, but you'd have to ask the cop if Craig treated him with respect and dignity, and formed a loving, committed relationship. I don't think he did, so I'd put that in the negative column. See how this works yet?

"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?"

He would be a hypocrite then - saying one thing and doing another.

"What if he got picked up by police driving while intoxicated?"

Definitely morally negative behaviour - drinking and driving can certainly cause harm. Loving, committed, same-sex relationships do not, so you'd need a more apt analogy.

"Would his votes for drunk driving legislation be the work of a hypocrite?"

Yes, but his vote for drunk driving legislation (presuming he's agin' it) would be a morally positive act, even if they were the act of a hypocrite. His votes against equality for gay citizens are morally negative acts, and also the act 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?"

I didn't know being an alcoholic was a sin.

Very good post, Rod. This is something I've been saying for years about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the pretense of having a virtue or quality that one doesn't possess. "Saying one thing, and doing another" is not the essence of hypocrisy, though it is in the popular imagination. The term "hypocrisy" is misused in the same way the word "scandal" is. As Rod said, opposing same-sex marriage, non-discrimination laws, etc. is not tantamount to saying that one is heterosexual. A homosexual is not a potted plant or a pod person, and is fully capable of making up his own mind about these issues without being told by gay activists or family-values lobbyists how to think or what to say. Eric Scheie at Classical Values has an excellent and important post on both this point and the denial to a right to privacy by the more radical of the leftists.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/08/post_435.html

Of course, the term hypocrisy has political salience, but that doesn't mean that social conservatives (and others) ought not to fight back. The tyrannical President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, is using the hypocrisy charge against Archbishop Pius Ncube to muzzle him and hold onto power. Even if the adultery allegations against Ncube are true - and they may very well be bogus, though they sure didn't seem to be at first - evil men cannot be allowed to get away with their crimes by discrediting braver and better men. Liberals have some stake in this: one can imagine if a lead campaigner against torture or the death penalty were exposed as a vicious wife and child beater and how unfair it would be for right-wing political enemies to play the false "hypocrisy" card.

Yet, for all that, Craig is a hypocrite because he went out of his way on multiple occasions to deny his homosexuality for the purpose of deceiving people, and worst of all, used his wife as a prop in spreading his lies. I also honestly can't think of anything that Craig accomplished that was particularly noteworthy other than the Singing Senators. I won't miss him.

Irrespective of Craig's gayness or straightness, the "ick" factor is completely off the scale here. Nasty, nasty, nasty.

But that's the whole problem. This is just another case of the "gay issue" being spun (right and left) to divide and distract otherwise thoughtful, intelligent Christians from the systematic erosion of the very economic infrastructure out of which any meaningful "Crunchy Conservative" culture might arise.

The American middle class is being destroyed right before our very eyes. What little organic goat farm are you going to retreat to when your workplace has closed doors, your 401k has melted down and you find yourself tragically upside-down on your mortgage? Very few, if any of us, are materially prepared for that day. I'd imagine most of us are already corporate wage-serfs at some level. But instead of substantive discussions concerning how a sane, sustainable common future might be pursued-- in real life --all this mental energy is expended on whether or not some GOP corporate bed-buddy with an astonishing sense of entitlement is a hypocrite for trying to get his foodle doodled by a police officer in an airport restroom!

If you don't want to be gay, by all means don't be gay. But let's all get past this ridiculous obsession with gayness, for heaven's sake. We know that schizophrenics aren't possessed by demons. Maybe it's time we recognized that many, if not most, gay people aren't gay simply because they're degenerate. Let's start having a little common sense with our Christianity. Otherwise we might as well hand the keys to the Kingdom over to Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al and be done with it.

This discussion started out Jonah Goldberg but seems to be ending up Jonah Hill.

>Jonah Hill

Who is Jonah Hill?

I agree that the hypocrisy charge doesn’t accurately describe Craig’s worst offense. But it should be more than obvious why liberals seize on this with such frenzy: they can’t bring themselves to object to the underlying offense for which Craig is supposedly being hypocritical.

A bit of free association to go with my morning coffee...

The charge of lewd conduct would never occur in a heterosexual setting. A man walking into a women's lavatory would set off alarm bells well before he had the chance to be lewd (if that was even his intent). I don't know any off hand, but I think statistics from countries where co-ed lavatories are common (if they exist) could be instructive. How do they handle "lewd conduct"? Do they even have laws about it?

"Lewd conduct" is problematic, in my view. Where is the line drawn with sexual misconduct/assault? Again, in a het setting a person making uninvited physical contact of a sexual nature with another person of the opposite gender is a no-brainer. Does the law cover same-sex sexual assault? I want to know if all that Craig did was talk; I suspect that was the extent of it, but I've seen no reports. If there was no touching involved, then the entire "lewd conduct" thing is ridiculous. Ask any woman wearing a skirt whilst walking by a construction site at lunch time (okay, I chose to use a stereotype; read between the lines). How many arrests for lewd conduct come out of that sort of situation?

It's time that our society got a grip, and its individual members got a life. Just because a thing is not covered by legislation doesn't prevent social remedies (if more people would just have a little bit of moral gumption around standing up to bullies). With that, insisting on making a law instead of seeking a social remedy is worse than doing nothing. It gives people a reason to be moral cowards (the police are responsible for that), and criminalizes something that should have been taught as being wrong starting in the second grade. It's an extension of the parental and ridiculous expectation that teachers will teach polite behaviors in school. The correct view is that they will reinforce them. If the child doesn't have the basics, no teacher is capable of substituting for that, not even in private schools (where they are more likely to expel than remediate, eh?).

In my mind's eye, I see a long line of morally cowardly men failing to deal successfully with unwanted same-sex talk in a men's room. I see them struggling between getting violent and doing nothing, because no one -- let alone society -- has informed them that there is a middle alternative. Talk back, say no, be angry in a verbal way; if it escalates to violence, certainly defend himself. Somehow, this obvious and reasonable middle ground has become a blind spot... at least, in my view.

Dolce Vita,

"If you don't want to be gay, by all means don't be gay."

That's like saying, "If you don't like being 5'4" tall, by all means don't be 5'4" tall." i.e. absurd.

Franklin Evans,

"if it escalates to violence"

The right-wing, Faux "News" opinionator Tucker Carlson has admitted to resorting to violence when he was approached for sex in a (high school?) washroom. He slammed the guy's head into the wall. Nice "solution", don't you think? (NOT!)

Franklin has a good point. Doesn't it bother anyone that this guy was arrested for tapping his foot and placing his foot next to a man's foot in the next BR stall? The fact that the police included the part about the senator placing his bag in front of the stall to obstruct the vision of others seems weird. Where else would you place your luggage in a BR stall? I would feel a little better about this if the policeman would have arrested the senator once they were together in the same stall & the obvious intent and only possible conclusion to the meeting was public sex. Is it really a crime for a man to hit on another man?

What if a man hit on me in an airport? What if he started to play footsies, winked at me, and then said something obnoxious like..."I like the looks of you. Let's plan to meet in the lavatory and join the mile high club." Should he be arrested, or would a simple "get lost" from me suffice?

This is icky. I don't like the thought of weirdos in the men's room because my son is 9 yrs old and goes into them alone now & then. But I, also, don't think that men should be arrested for soliciting sex when all there is to go on is a tapping foot & someone trying to play footsies under a BR stall.

As for David Vitter, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing him go. The Vitter and Craig cases can, however, be distinguished in several important ways:

1. Craig was convicted (pled guilty).

2. Instead of showing contrition, Craig has handled the matter with brazen and inept lies, which are now being ridiculed all over the country (Senator Wide Stance).

3. The "ick factor" (as a commenter above called it) is much higher in Craig's case than in Vitter's. Note that I'm NOT saying that what Vitter did was somehow less immoral than what Craig did. But law and politics are subject to societal norms, which are never entirely rational. What Craig did is simply viewed (for reasons which, by the way, have nothing to do with religion) as far more degenerate than what Vitter did.

Having said all that, the Republican Senator who deserves to be ousted before either Craig or Vitter is Ted Stevens, the corrupt pork king whose home was recently raided by the FBI searching for evidence of bribes and kickbacks.

The idea that Craig is some how not an obvious hypocrite is taking right-wing sophistry to near comical levels of absurdity.

As always, The Onion puts it all in perspective, though this may not be suitable for the more delicate sensibilities on this blog or certain office internet-filtering software.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33540

Rod's convinced me that this was probably not hypocritical behavior. The senator might believe that homosexuality is wrong and feels badly about doing something he believes to be wrong.

I, also, agree that if the people in Washington push out Craig then they should push out Vitter. However, I think that the only people who should be calling for the removal of Craig are the people in Idaho. They put him there. Let them decide if he stays or goes.

However, I think that the only people who should be calling for the removal of Craig are the people in Idaho. They put him there. Let them decide if he stays or goes.

I certainly hope they take their time deciding. As we've seen, your stance on these things can have huge consequences.

Cackle.

Ask the same question of heterosexuality, Rod, and you'll have your answer. Yes, it's an inherent and ineradicable part of one's identity. Isn't YOUR heterosexuality that, Rod? Do you resist your heterosexuality? Do you deny it? (I'm not sure why youwould.) Or do you just accept the fact that you are attracted to the opposite sex?

I don't deny it, but I do -- what's the word? -- regulate it, meaning I confine its physical expression to what the Church teaches are morally valid ways. After my conversion but before my marriage, I committed to living those years in obedience to Church teaching. Meaning I "denied" my heterosexuality not in the sense of saying it doesn't exist (which would be absurd), but in the sense of working to subdue my passions out of obedience to what I believed, and believe, to be moral truth.

This is normative sexual morality for unmarried Christians, even if they never marry.

This is normative sexual morality for unmarried Christians, even if they never marry.

Of course, you knew that marriage was an inevitability and that while struggling through chastity, you would someday be able to have a loving, committed relationship that would free you from this struggle because you would be able to marry.

Or you could have decided you needed to have sex, had a quicky in marriage in Vegas, and you'd be good to go.

Holding gays and lesbians to the same standard is unfair, in that context, when you also advocate against allowing them to marry. You say, "be chaste until marriage, because that's what the Bible commands" yet you also say, "and by the way, you can't get married."

Ignoring the fact that your marriage would have been as foreign to the Scripture writers as a marriage between two men, you have crafted a morality play that is the equivilant of a legal loophole.

Will, just a bit of a nit: "The charge of..." clearly refers to legal consequences after the act. Your examples do not address that. Also, "lewd conduct" implies witnesses. Unless you expect testimony to that effect from the prostitute, Grant is a poor example to use.

Simon, charging people with misdemeanors that can and should be handled with social consequences is a gross waste of my tax dollars. I'd like to find out who requested and authorized the sting; methinks a high ranking poobah was hit on in a bathroom, and demanded police action because he could.

"[liberals] can’t bring themselves to object to the underlying offense for which Craig is supposedly being hypocritical."

Conservatives shouldn't object either. I'm a liberal and even I'm disappointed by what conservatives have become in this country. Get the government out of our lives! What consenting adults do together is their business! Aren't those conservative positions?

I don't understand why conservatives aren't up in arms about this. Sex in a public restroom should be prohibited by law, but merely approaching somebody? All Craig did was try to initiate a sexual encounter. And for that, he's arrested? Cruising for sex is a crime?

We need the government to prevent this?

Rod,

Thank you for your honest answer. it seems to jive with what I suggested...

"I don't deny it, but I do -- what's the word? -- regulate it, meaning I confine its physical expression to what the Church teaches are morally valid ways."

iow, it is what you DO with your sexuality that determines whether or not it is morally positive or negative or neutral.

"I committed to living those years in obedience to Church teaching."

Terrific. I am sure an equal number of actual gay people of faith do likewise. But of course, not all Church's have the same teachings about the subject.

"in the sense of working to subdue my passions out of obedience to what I believed, and believe, to be moral truth."

Great. The trouble is, Mr. Craig did not. He 'preached', if you will, "the moral truth" (which I doubt includes cruising for washroom sex), but he did NOT "subdue" his passions. That is what, in my books, makes him a hypocrite.

R-eP: I actually am going to "come out" on Rod's point-of-view on this re: hypocrisy. By your definition of hypocrisy, we are all hypocrites when we sin (and fail to live up to the standards set by our consciences).

If Craig were to say that he hated what had become a compulsive behavior for him, I could believe that. What all of us "armchair psychiatrists" (as someone called us) can only speculate on is to what extent this behavior is a sign of a homosexual orientation vs. an obsessive compulsive (addictive) behavior.

And a big shout of thanks to naturalmom for her post. She expressed my sentiments pretty well.

All I can say is, thank God for Mr. Bottoms--a voice of sanity amid the waving billows of redefining words and acts to suit the Humpty-Dumptian standard of "who is to be master." Needless to say, I appreciate you other voices of reason out there, but Mr. Bottoms is more fun. Cackle . . . .

Not being an habitue of the men's room, I asked my husband if he'd ever seen anything untoward going on in that hallowed sanctuary, or if he'd ever been accosted. He said "No--not even when I was really pretty." Which, believe me, he was when we first met. : D

There was an occasion when he was walking down the street and a good-looking guy in a convertible pulled up and asked him if he needed a ride. He smiled and said "No, thanks--I feel like walking." Strangely, no trauma ensued, nor did he feel the need to come back with some friends and beat the guy up.

I've lost all patience with the hysterical cackling going on over the thought that there might be a gay man in the men's room, and horror of horrors, he might tap his foot in some icky fashion!! Meanwhile, I and every woman I know have suffered actual assault by heterosexual men over the course of decades. If I gripe about this, here's what I normally get from Christians: "Gee, that's too bad. But what can you do? It's original sin!"

Gay cruising does not bother me. Not in the slightest. I don't even feel a need to deliver a token condemnation of it. Read my lips: I DON'T CARE. If it's not spiritually healthy for the participants, well, I guess they'll have to work that out for themselves. They aren't hurting me, and it's not up to me to regulate their spiritual well-being. What I or you or anyone finds "icky" is not an appropriate basis for law.

I and every woman I know have suffered actual assault by heterosexual men over the course of decades. If I gripe about this, here's what I normally get from Christians: "Gee, that's too bad. But what can you do? It's original sin!"

I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe that (1) EVERY woman you know has suffered actual assault, or (2) Christians ordinarily respond to such assaults by dismissing them as just a product of original sin which we can't do anything about.

If I had a dollar for every time my life was threatened by the driver of another vehicle on local highways where no cop was around to do something about it, I could hit on men in public bathrooms and pay that fine at least twice a year.

That's one of the most bizarre juxtapositions I've ever created, and I didn't really have to work for it. Thanks, Simon.

Michael Vick was not convicted because people found his conduct icky, but because he tortured and killed living creatures. I consider it entirely proper to have laws forbidding harm to living things. If someone thinks he can prove that heterosexual men experience physical harm from the fact that some other men like to have sex with each other, I would say go for it.

I might be naive, Simon. But I do know that a man can be assaulted by a man, so I take your concerns seriously.

I'm curious as to where you draw the line. You've described normal behavior in the men's room. What if the guy next to you in the row of urinals is trying to sneak-a-peak? That would be weird, but does it warrant a fine?

Let's try to compare this to man-woman behavior. If a man was caught staring at a woman's breasts, would it warrant a fine? What if he was staring at her breasts and licked his lips? Would that warrant a fine?

Michael Vick was not convicted because people found his conduct icky, but because he tortured and killed living creatures. I consider it entirely proper to have laws forbidding harm to living things.

So we should have laws against stomping on cockroaches? Trapping vermin? Killing animals for food?

I agree that Michael Vick's actions deserve punishment. But the norms they violate are based purely on gut level societal values, not any sort of rationale principles. We are outraged by torturing dogs -- and so we rightly punish those who do it. Except for a handful of PETA fanatics, we are not outraged by other forms of violence against animals -- certainly not by killing insects, for example. Every society has the right to translate its values into law.

I'm curious as to where you draw the line. You've described normal behavior in the men's room. What if the guy next to you in the row of urinals is trying to sneak-a-peak? That would be weird, but does it warrant a fine?

Let's try to compare this to man-woman behavior. If a man was caught staring at a woman's breasts, would it warrant a fine? What if he was staring at her breasts and licked his lips? Would that warrant a fine?

watsy, first of all, there's no need for a magical bright line. The people of Minnesota have decided that the pattern of activity conducted by Sen. Craig is on the wrong side of the line. That is a perfectly reasonable determination.

No one has suggested that Sen. Craig would have or should have been arrested if he'd made advances on some guy sitting in a hotel bar. But a restroom is a public place which people need to use and are entitled to use without encountering sexual harassment.

Comparisons to man-woman behavior are fine. A man staring at a woman in public is rude, but not criminal. But put them in an enclosed space she can only leave with difficulty and advances by the man rightly become criminal lewd conduct (or perhaps even attempted assault).

And once again: We are not talking here about the Police State throwing people into the camps for this stuff. It's a gross misdemeanor and a small fine. Perfectly reasonable to me. More importantly, it's perfectly reasonable to the people of Minnesota, which is why it is the law.

I consider sexual assault any form of unwelcome touching with sexual intent.

By that definition, every woman I know, (that includes myself) has been sexually assaulted many times over.

If I had a nickel for every time some male touched my booty without my consent, I'd... well, I'd have a couple of bucks, anyhow :)

C'mon, ladies - fess up. How many times have you had to deal with unwelcome sexual advances that involved touching? Simon's vast experience as a woman aside, the number is far higher than the number of men who've had to endure someone taking a peek at their johnsons in the men's room, I'd be willing to wager.

As for the rest, Simon, I made a bad attempt to mock you by using "priorities" in an analogy. Allow me to make up for that here.

Personally, here in Philly, I would be outraged (for more than the stated reasons) to learn that hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent at PHL to catch men engaged in lewd conduct in airport men's rooms, when I can on my own gather six to ten license plate numbers per day of people driving in excess of 90 mph and putting every other driver (including myself) within my sight in danger as they pass us. I am not exaggerating for effect here. Six to ten every day. I am not counting the many times I have been aggressively tailgated, those being license plates I would find difficult to find.

I can report all of them, agree to show up at every court hearing, and the police will (if being polite) sigh and tell me not to bother. They just don't have the resources.

Finding perverts in men's rooms just pales, ya know?

sigilaris, for the record, I am not calling you a liar, but simply chalk up your claim that every single woman you know has been the victim of "actual sexual assault" to hyperbole. Unless your definition of "actual sexual assault" is far looser than that of ordinary English usage.

Franklin: the argument that there are crimes more serious than the one for which Sen. Craig was convicted is specious. Should grafitti be tolerated because there are unsolved armed robberies? As long as there are drunk drivers on the road, why should anyone ever be stopped for merely speeding? And why should police try to stop any crime as long as there are murderers out there somewhere who have not been caught? You can play this game with any crime (short of murder) and use it to argue that enforcement of that crime is a waste of tax dollars. That's just nonsensical.

Simon,

That is a valid and respectable rebuttal, but it offers no thought around the reality of modern law enforcement: police are simply overwhelmed.

So, in a harshly practical sense (and note the stories about where I live, Philadelphia) I would much rather not see any money spent catching graffiti artists. Aside: here in Philly, that's a bad example; we have a very strong, effective and well-funded non-profit Anti-Graffiti Network... but perhaps that should bring us back to my main point: don't criminalize things that rightly belong to social consequences. Graffiti is property damage, technically true, but it is also much more effectively "fought" by neighbors getting together and giving their young artists a place to put their art. We have, I believe, the most outdor murals of any city in the nation. They are practically graffiti free, all of them. A good reason for that is that they were designed and painted by kids caught spraying graffiti on highway overpasses. http://www.muralarts.org/about/

The question is just more complex than we've covered until now. I do have a rational basis for my objections. It's not just outrage at wasted money; it's outrage at misdirected efforts. Don't say "more serious"; say "more effectively dealt with other than as a law enforcement issue."

Franklin, I don't know whether police in Philadelphia spend much effort on stopping lewd behavior in men's rooms. Perhaps there is a non-profit Anti-Wide Stance Network that handles such things at a non-criminal level. :)

But apparently it's been enough of a problem in the Minneapolis airport that authorities there have decided to crack down on it. That's typically how enforcement of minor crimes works: When it gets out of hand, the police set up a team to make a few examples and the rate of the crime diminishes. The Minnesota cops probably devote very few resources to this kind of thing, but they decided to crack down this summer, probably after receiving multiple complaints from the public.

For all we know, Sen. Craig may have done this hundreds of times before and gotten away with it. He may well have done it before in the very same airport. This time, he had the very bad luck to start tapping his foot in his stall at the wrong time and place. But my inner libertarian just doesn't see this as any kind of injustice to him or as an example of wrongful law enforcement priorities.

first of all, there's no need for a magical bright line. The people of Minnesota have decided that the pattern of activity conducted by Sen. Craig is on the wrong side of the line.

I respect that you don't want to answer the question. Have a good night and be careful in the men's room.

So are some of the commenters arguing that there is a unenumerated constitutional right to solicit sex in a public restroom?

As it stands, this would seem to indicate that you would have no problem with Shari'a Law, for instance. You would have no problem with what we consider to be human rights violations around the world, as long as that society has decided to translate its values into summary executions, forced abortions, or ethnic cleansing.

Shari'a law is troubling mainly where it is imposed on non-Muslim (typically Christian, but also Zoroastrian, Jewish and Hindu) populations who were around long before the Muslims showed up. Shari'a law within, say, Saudi Arabia, doesn't cause me to lose any sleep.

As for your other examples, I am unaware of a society whose values include "summary executions, forced abortions, or ethnic cleansing." Those are the policies of particular totalitarian regimes, not reflections of traditional societal mores.

Recovering ex-pentecostal:

"If you don't want to be gay, by all means don't be gay."

"That's like saying, "If you don't like being 5'4" tall, by all means don't be 5'4" tall." i.e. absurd.""

Exactly. I was being sarcastic. And a little sleepy. And grumpy.

Simon,

I see we are finding a common ground. I'm rather tall, mostly in the legs, and I have to be careful when using public urinals. It's a common courtesy thing, to my mind. :-)

I would ask you to consider one philosophical point, which I keep harping on but in a one-sided fashion so far.

Societal mores are indeed a majority rules function. Individuals can harbor disagreements with them, but so long as they are quiet and private about them they are essentially free to go their own way. However, once that more becomes a law, de Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority rears its ugly head. Constitutional rights are a direct response to that tyranny.

I am a strong constitutionalist. I vomit (figuratively, of course) when I see how our Congresscritters, judges and executive staff trod on their oaths to defend the Constitution. However, I draw a thick, broad line, and I endorse the societal mores enforcement that becomes a tyranny when passed into law. The Bill of Rights represents the rational thought that permits or denies a more's transition to a law.

Lewd conduct should be subject to societal control. When it crosses the line into assault (as Sig illustrates), it must be subject to law, if only because we had a long history where it wasn't, and plenty of evidence of abuse of that lack. I'm not talking about less or more serious crimes. I'm talking about acts or behaviors that should not be crimes, and being crimes impedes the enforcement of crimes that should be.

Franklin,

It's really hard to get my dander up on these threads when your posts are so damned civil and reasonable. :)

I do take your point about many matters being better handled through social pressures rather than law enforcement. As noted above, no sane person believes that propositioning another person should be a crime if it happens in, say, a hotel bar or while sitting at the gate at the airport terminal.

But we do not draw the lines in the same place. Lewd behavior is not a protected constitutional right. And even if it were, the larger public also has rights -- in this case, the right to decide that such behavior is off limits in the restroom.

I'm not on any kind of crusade to clean up public restrooms and frankly never even thought about this phenomenon until a few days ago. But if this behavior is common in the Minneapolis airport restrooms and it bothers people there, it hardly seems unreasonable to me for the people to direct their police to clean it up.

Simon sez...

"No one has suggested that Sen. Craig would have or should have been arrested if he'd made advances on some guy sitting in a hotel bar. But a restroom is a public place..."

Um, so now a bar isn't a public place???

Sorry, recovering, but I'm getting two hairs for the price of one here, m'self...

I go into a restroom out of necessity and with a reasonable expectation of restricted contact with others in that place. A restroom is a public place that makes an effort to provide some level of privacy.

I go into a hotel bar with opposite aspects in play: it is my choice, and I have a reasonable expectation of less- or unrestricted contact with others.

If a man made a physical advance towards me in a restroom, I'd react with anger and act on that anger if he persisted. I consider that unacceptable behavior in that place regardless of my being heterosexual.

If a man made a physical advance towards me in a bar, I'd be honest in my rejection of it, and at worst annoyed if he persisted; I'd certainly ask management to intervene before contemplating any sort of angry response. I consider that acceptable general behavior in that place, and I will look for other reasons (usually inebriation) for persistance towards me despite my making my preferences clear. I've dealt with many drunks of many sorts in my lifetime, including homosexual ones. It all comes with the territory, in my view.

Recovering, for me it's a matter of situational ethics.

1) In a bar, I am as much a guest as anyone else. A guest defers to the host in certain areas. I know many bar owners who wished some macho didn't decide to take matters into his own hands, trashing the place in the process.

2) I am making a distinction, not clearly I must grant, between an ordinary situation and a situation involving bullying. The drunk in the bar is not a bully in that situation; the man trolling for sex in the restroom is when he persists after the first demand to stop. On a purely practical level, "management" is right across the bar from me in the pub, but I have to leave the restroom and the situation to go find it. The man in the restroom is imposing on me, and an immediate response is indicated; my choices are limited there. They are not so limited in the bar.

Your question about my exercising restraint is a fair one. I'm not trying to dodge it. I have a strong opinion about many things, and courtesy is one of them. I will also grant that it is not exactly a mainstream opinion.

Craig is NOT gay. He's just helping out while they're busy!