When I first heard about this story, I thought "great! another Republican hypocrite gets his just deserts."
Had a little back & forth with Right Wing Sis who serially repeated the talking points: conspiracy plot to out Craig; innocent due to wide stance and picking toilet paper up off the floor (yeah, right - we all do that, don't we?); not a hypocrite 'cause he really really believes gays are not deserving of equal rights (the WSJ editorial line). And I said soorrrrreeeeeeyyyy -- busted! Hoisted on his own petard.
Then the more I looked into it, the sadder and more complex the whole thing became. Though there's been a lot of public commentary on Craig's situation, none that I've read mentions the fact that before the Supreme Court decision in 2003, in Idaho (as in TX), sodomitical acts were punishable by jail terms of 5 years to life. (That's right, no maximum penalty in Idaho.) We are talking about just four years ago! While the statute may not have been applied all that recently, there was still a case in the 1990s of a guy being sentenced to 5-12 years in jail. For consensual gay sex in Idaho.
Now, more interesting, apparently there were rulings about the assumption of privacy in restroom stalls. So (theoretically- I'm not a legal scholar) you have a sort of loophole situation in which the only (or at least "a") legal and safe place in Idaho, for Craig to have had sex prior to 2003 was IN a bathroom stall.
That's some catch, that Catch-22!
The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States - Idaho
As for the "gay witch hunt" aspect.. there is an element of that, and I completely understand LG4NB's analogy to hetero pick-ups. It's possible (however unlikely) that a bathroom hook-up could lead to a couple of guys getting a room. It's about 100% unlikely in Craig's case since the risk of exposure and recognition would be too great; he can't just go on a "date", he's got to go for the anonymous deal, having sold his soul to the R party. There is a public interest in limiting public sex of any flavor, and I also understand why officers need to do stings, though it would have been better in this case to have based an arrest on a more overt, documentable proposition. Thanks, Leonidas, for the thoughtful explanation of the cop's-eye view.
Through all this, I cast my mind back to the 1980s and Gerry Studds, caught finagling consensually with a 17 y.o. male congressional page. There was scandal, and censure by a Dem majority House and he was stripped of some committee position(s?). I think that was the correct response, as they focused on the inappropriate boss/subordinate aspect. Studds did NOT resign and went on to get re-elected six times because what he'd done (though inappropriate) didn't create a stampede for the exits among his constituents; they knew he was gay.. and he wasn't agitating for laws that would purge gays from public life (like Jim West, for example) or limit their rights (like Foley, Craig, et al.)!!
If these guys were Democrats, maybe the same would apply to them: misuse your power, get censured; modify your ways and your choice of gay companions/venues and live to fight another day. Studds died last year at 69 but managed to marry his longtime partner in 2004, the first week gay marriage was legal in MA. He was in his mid-sixties! Isn't that a happy ending?
There are people today who are still angry about that 2003 Supreme Ct. decision. They would like to see a conservative supermajority on a Court that would revisit it. If counted among the people working to bring this about are closeted gay Republicans, I can see why some might think they are fair game. I feel sorry for Craig in a way.. BUT these people had a very nice run indeed with the power and money and perks while it lasted.
These would never have accrued to them had they been honest. There are essentially zero "out" Republican politicians, and even speaking as a Democrat I happen to think that is a bad thing for the R party.
Are the laws/reactions more severe for homosexuals? Sure, but Craig & co. are the very people who work to make and keep them that way. They made the bed, so they should now lie in it.. should they get a free pass? Who I feel sorry for most are the families that in some cases have been deluded, less sympathy for the constituents and parishioners defrauded.
The breaking news is that apparently Craig is reconsidering his resignation decision. It will be interesting to see how it plays out for the Republican spinmeisters. (Have no fear, there'll be lip-service -sorry!-to new-found "tolerance", etc.) It may well all blow over and be forgotten in the IOKIYOR mold. The cognitive dissonance will remain, slightly scuffed, but undefeated and perhaps even amplified. These people believe what they want to believe; they've got their "alternative reality" all set up for pretty much any circumstance you want to throw at them. Trust me; I'm related to one of them.
