Readers Write: The Fall of Larry Craig

By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet. Posted September 8, 2007.

On Monday August 27th, the media broke the Larry Craig scandal. By Saturday of that week, Senator Craig, buffeted by the media, his fellow politicians, left-wing and right-wing groups, announced his intent to resign -- right in time for everyone to relax on Labor Day. The call for the senator's head spanned the political spectrum: from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) condemning Craig's actions as "unforgivable" to the gay blogger, Mike Rogers, who had placed Craig on his list of politicians to "out" almost a year prior. It is perhaps the national spectacle of liberal and LGBT organizations leaping into bed with conservatives that has prompted some writers -- and readers -- to question what, exactly, we're condemning.

Some like Sandip Roy in his article, "The Outcome of Wanting (Gay) Sex" began by stating, "I come to defend Larry Craig, not to bury him." What followed was a clarification of the facts: that Craig might have wanted to have sex, but did not engage in any sexual acts. These were details that AlterNet readers like tomkara were also quick to remind other writers, "Several posters here keep saying or implying that Craig "had sex" in public. HE DID NOT." Ames agreed, "This is an important point to make and I'm somewhat surprised that it hasn't been made earlier. Wanting, thinking about, or engaging in homosexual behaviour (with a consenting adult) is neither morally wrong nor a crime."

One area of agreement among AlterNet commenters was that Larry Craig was a moral hypocrite. Just last year Craig voted in favor of a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. Seven years before that, he voted against expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. Poster thornwolf agreed that Craig didn't really commit any "real crime," but that his hypocrisy was the crime deserving of "punishment and expulsion." Libertine said, "I would have more sympathy for Craig if he'd not supported anti-gay legislation and other anti-progressive means. It's the hypocrisy that causes me to lose all sympathy for him." Fluffmuffinmom pointed to the use of anti-gay initiatives during the 2004 elections when "the homophobes took the bait and Craig and his Cronies wallowed in re-election glory." Bryanth798 noted, "If it had been someone else besides him, he would be calling for their blood."

Other AlterNet readers argued that his hypocrisy alone did not merit expulsion from the Senate. Mdharold wrote, "Hypocrisy is no crime." Freedom38 went further, saying, "We should let him remain in the Senate, but every time he attempts to discriminate against the LGBT community, we'll hold up an article or photo and cough loudly ("Ehemm ...")."

Jmooney wrote that Craig's fate should be left to the Idahoan voters. "He should go on statewide TV and make his case and ask for Idahoans to call his office ... That's how Ted Kennedy did it after Chappaquiddick ... does anyone think that some questionable behavior in a public bathroom is worse than the death of a young woman caused by Kennedy's questionable behavior? ... If we pull stuff like this away from voters of a given jurisdiction, that just makes voters less and less competent."

For some readers, there was a contextual understanding for why Craig kept his homosexual desires confined to bathroom stalls. The aforementioned tomkara wrote, "Yes, Craig had the "option" of finding somebody in a gay bar or going online -- but as a horribly closeted man he wouldn't have been caught dead in a gay bar and would have left a trail had he gone online." Others, like HumanCourt, were more vocal, "AND IF HE IS GAY (admitting it or not) HE SHOULD STAND UP ... TO ALL THE STRAIGHT PEOPLE TELLING HIM AND BULLYING HIM ABOUT HIS HYPOCRISY. GIVE ME A BREAK. YEARS OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE RULES OF HYPOCRISY SHOULD BE SHOVED BACK IN THEIR FACE."

See more stories tagged with: sex, gay, larry craig

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »