There is a difference between Craig and Vitter: Vitter's acts involved consenting adults in private. Craig's acts were public. There is no possibility that someone uninvolved could get mixed up with what Vitter did. It is quite possible that someone unthinkingly tapping his foot while using the toilet could find himself the object of obvious and unwanted advances.

It is not unreasonable to want to be proof against unwanted advances in airport lavatories. That is (at least ostensibly) what the police were doing there.

I am not judging the relative seriousness of the offenses but it is simply untrue to say no argument can be made that Craig's were more serious.

Here's the crucial line in Hewitt's apologia for Craig:

Craig's behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required

The key word there is "repulsive".

Hewitt finds homosexual activity repulsive in a way that he doesn't find heterosexual prostitution.

That's why they're Republicans, y'know...

"apologia for Craig" was not my intended phrase...

Vitter might have been with a consenting adult but my guess is Louisiana still arrests *women* for prostitution. (Anyone want to dig up the conviction/arrests numbers in Louisiana?) The "johns" get far less arrests.

I'm a little torn though about the ongoing attempts to prove that Craig has gay sex sometime in his past. I understand the hypocrisy angle but why does bother my conscious a little such digging into one person's private sexual behavior?

It's not enough I think to claim it's only Craig's hypocrisy as a justification for it. Because whatever else Craig is, he has decided he doesn't want to be in a homosexual relationship. You could argue he thinks because he doesn't want to be gay he's being consistant by trying to make sure no one else can happily be openly gay.

So is the argument that anyone who engages in gay sex cannot make a legitimate anti-gay argument? (As legitimate as anti-gay marriage, anti-DADT argument can be).

It's a weird kabuki dance to arrest somebody for, but it's in the public interest not to have foolin' around of any orientation in an extremely public restroom.

No serious difference?

Vitter is giving money to people who are soliciting attention.

Craig is kicking my feet and reaching under the bathroom stall in a very unwelcome advance while I am just trying to do my business in private.

Craig is a pervert just like the guy who walks into the bar and grabs my sister's breasts while she's trying to have a drink with friends.

The very real difference between Craig and Vitter has nothing to do with homo vs hetero. The diffence is consent, privacy, and just plain good manners.

Newscat:

Craig is evil precisely because he wants "to make sure no one ... can happily be openly gay." I could care less whether he is also a hypocrite. The fact that he is is just icing on the cake.

What's behind the right's different response to David Vitter's call girls and Larry Craig's boy trouble? In a nutshell, the boys.

As the old expression goes, you are what you eat. And that imagery, apparently, is behind the growing conservative chorus calling for the resignation of disgraced Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig.

For the details, see:
"Behind the Right's Double Standard on Craig and Vitter."

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000736.htm

* "...it seems pretty clear to me the arrest of Craig wasn't justifiable."

One thing you may have overlooked is that many cities and communities have passed ordinances called anti-cruising laws for public places such as the bathrooms in parks, bars, adult bookstores, etc... And I believe that Minneapolis has such laws in place.

For example, there is an adult themed bookstore in downtown Minneapolis that has an adult video arcade on its second floor. You know, put quarters or tokens in a machine that let’s you watch so many minutes of various porn videos of your choosing in a private booth. Now these booths, which can resemble anything from a voting booth with a sliding sheet for door to a fully enclosed broom closet with a locking door, provide a person a certain amount of privacy depending on the booth type. Because of this, certain sexual things can go on inside of them depending on the amount of privacy and the level of a person’s daring. Heck, certain sexual things can even go on between people in two different booths adjacent to each other. Haven’t you ever heard of a “glory hole”?

In this particular adult store, there is a sign posted at the entrance of the adult video arcade that clearly states in no uncertain terms that “cruising” for gay or straight sex in the arcade is against the law and persons who engage in such behavior will be arrested, removed from the building, and cited accordingly. It further states that cruising entails such actions as having more than one person in a booth, talking between adjacent booths, sticking feet or hands into an occupied booth to signal the person, standing outside an occupied booth waiting for the person to exit, or following a person around the arcade. Also, it clearly states that masturbating in the booth is considered lewd behavior and creating a glory hole in a booth’s wall is considered vandalism -- both of which actions will be prosecuted as such.

One reason the store has to be so explicit about these policy’s is because in the past the police have sent in undercover officers and cited persons as well as the store for violating existing anti-cruising laws. It got so bad that the store actually converted the viewing booths from semiprivate broom closet type booths with full length walls and doors to booths that resemble traditional-style voting booths or wall-mounted phone booths with sliding curtains. This was done so that when a person enters the booth the arcade attendants can see their legs from about the feet to the knees to ensure as best possible the person in the booth is following the rules.

So knowing this, when considering Senator Craig’s case, keep in mind that police who work these kinds of undercover operations are trained to recognize certain behaviors and actions that people looking for sex in public places exhibit. (It’s kind of like officers in high drug traffic areas are trained to look for suspicious behaviors and actions from persons in or traveling through the area -- white man in an all colored housing project, nice expensive new car in poor part of town, ducking into and out of an alleyway, etc...) For instance: Senator Craig standing, almost loitering, outside the occupied stall and peeking in; him moving his foot to engage the person in the next the stall, even making physical contact with the person; and finally him putting his hand under the divider into the next stall beckoning the person to respond. Senator Craig’s actions, especially en toto, are considered a solicitation on his part to engage in some form of lewd behavior or sex in the airport’s very public bathroom. The language doesn’t have to be verbal for solicitation to occur, but it must fit the well established pattern, a pattern which is obviously known to cruisers and police alike.

These anti-cruising laws exist to protect not only the innocent people who happen to accidentally witness public lewdness between two persons, but also the innocent people who just want to use a public facility without having to worry about being disturbed by a person sticking their body parts (feet, hands, penis) under a bathroom stall. Now obviously from the above description of the adult bookstore’s video arcade you can probably tell that I’m not a prude. However, that doesn’t mean that I want to have some strange person anonymously solicit me for sex when all I’m trying to do is take a piss or sh*t in a public restroom. Nothing, and I mean nothing (not even the cold) creates stage fright more quickly or intensely than that.

A Minneapolis Resident

I think if Expressing an interest in having sex with someone who's just minding their own business and isn't interested were something our society found offensive enough to prosecute, a lot of bars would close.

I suspect the reason this case is getting so much outrage is that that sort of thing is considered wildly inappropriate when men are the targets.

Hell, Michael Crichton wrote a book to that effect, didn't he? Men being preyed on sexually is as big a threat as alien bacteria, recombinant dinosaurs, Japan, or environmentalists.

Julia, as noted above, this isn't "hey, you're cute, wanna do it?" type stuff. This is the groping, and grabbing and touching and such that's unwanted. I don't want women subjected to it in bars, and I don't want men subjected to it in the john. I agree that there's alot tied up in the way someone like Hewitt condemns a Craig versus a Vitter. But they are different things, and I'm comfortable saying that I'm more upset about Craig's behavior than I am about Vitter's. Vitter may be tacky, but hanging out in a brothel is not hanging out in the men's loo at the train station. Literally.

The difference, at least to the Right Wing Noise Machine, is that Vitter would be replaced by a Democrat and Craig would be replaced by a Republican. If Idaho had a Dem governor they'd hold their noses and defend him. QED.

I'm intrigued that you've decided Craig should not even have been arrested, given that he's already pled guilty. Also, you link to a blog whose comment section contains information that seems to have changed the mind of the blogger whose post you link approvingly to.

Seems to me that, given all of that, I'll trust the arresting officer over your third-hand opinion as to whether the arrest was justified.

Whispers' comment is enlightening.

The objection to the "justification" of this arrest is to the basic decency, justice and rationality of arresting gay people, but not straight people, for looking for sex.

Whispers is apparently blind to the entire issue of whether this law makes any sense, and the discrimination involved in criminalizing some people's sexuality but not others. instead, he trusts the arresting officer...apparently for loyally executing the law and not worrying his little head over whether there's any justice or common sense involved.

Just following orders. Just ask the state to enforcer the laws, it's not our place to question the legitimacy or justice of those laws.

I love the smell of rightwing authoritarianism in the morning, don't you?

Whispers' comment is enlightening.

The objection to the "justification" of this arrest is to the basic decency, justice and rationality of arresting gay people, but not straight people, for looking for sex.

Whispers is apparently blind to the entire issue of whether this law makes any sense, and the discrimination involved in criminalizing some people's sexuality but not others. instead, he trusts the arresting officer...apparently for loyally executing the law and not worrying his little head over whether there's any justice or common sense involved.

Just following orders. Just ask the state to enforcer the laws, it's not our place to question the legitimacy or justice of those laws.

I love the smell of rightwing authoritarianism in the morning, don't you?

Cereal doesn't seem to get it. This is a public restroom in an international airport where you might have to take your young children, not some cruise in a seedy part of town. All of your aeguments are pointless in this case but I would endorse them in other cases.

If Craig abhors homosexuals but is one anyways, it would bear evidence to the theory of determinate motivation.

He hates teh homo, he just cannot help himself.

D'oh!

So much for saying it's a lifestyle choice...

Uh, why is it in the public interest to not have people fooling around in a public bathroom? I mean, taking a crap is in general grosser than sex, especially if the sex is kind of held quietly. Teach your kids not to tap their feet or peek into occupied stalls.

Should wanking off in a stall be illegal? Me thinks not.

Incredible. People are going into intricate tapping and signaling mechanisms, and people act like this is a crude come-on while you're peeing. Hey tapped his foot, for God's sake, he rubbed his hand along the rail. Not interested in gay sex? Don't respond. Certainly American freedom of speech should have fallen apart long ago with crude advances to women, right guys? Oh gee, think about the kids. Well, come to think of it, sex education starts earlier and earlier - teach kids what being gay means, what sex vs. love means, etc. But this anti-cruising stuff is just puritan. People masturbate, people have sex. Give 'em a break. Would they have even had sex in the stalls or found a hotel room? We don't know. Just the smell of sex was in the air, unlike the more common smell of urine and feces.

"Indeed, discussing the Craig scandal at all poses a bit of a dilemma; I don't have much sympathy for him, given his relentlessly anti-gay voting record, but it seems pretty clear to me the arrest of Craig wasn't justifiable."

Yes, but, that's the world the Republican party has supported, maintained, and campaigned upong for decades.

I'm not talking about shcadenfreude here. Craig has consistently voted for repressing the rights of gays throughout his career. A world in which people are arrested for the pathetic action of seeking consensual partners in a public bathroom for anonymous sex, is a world Craig supports and helped build.

Note for instance, that Craig himself has not once used the defense that what he was charged with shouldn't be against the law, just that there was a 'misunderstanding'.

While I may agree that Craig's specific offense - while unhealthy - shouldn't be illegal, it apparently *is* illegal. I think it's odd to argue that Craig shouldn't be held to the same laws and consequences he supports, votes for, and campaigns to maintain.

If Craig wanted to challenge his arrest, he could have.

He did not. He plead guilty.

Julia, as noted above, this isn't "hey, you're cute, wanna do it?" type stuff. This is the groping, and grabbing and touching and such that's unwanted.

No, this is a guy tapping another guy's foot and waving his hand under the bathroom wall. I have no idea where you pulled all that from.

The invasion of privacy, on the other hand, I have a problem with, and in fact it was the more serious charge.

The privacy of other persons who used the bathroom was violated.

They filed a complaint.

Craig could not help it. He was inspired by Tom Friedman. He wanted to take 'a whack' at Iraq in his own way and tell the Muslim world to 'suck on this' to a quite literal extent.

FU forevah, Maf54 fan club.

Not to worry, the Bush economy has produced many underemployed, low wage jobs to contain the public bathroom/rest stop 'solicitation gap' that our country was in danger of others closing in on for a post 9-11 world.

While I don't really care about this guy one way or another - I can't help but wonder what he actually did that was illegal. I'm not defending his intentions but what did he do wrong? He tapped on the floor? Using a code? No money was exchanged nor was their any mention of money being exchanged. Did they have sex? Was he trying to just pick the guy up? Maybe, but if trying to pickup someone for sex was illegal then every bar in the country would end up shut down. I don't know but something here doesn't sound right. It sounds like the police arrested him too soon into the situation although maybe its against the law to think about having sex with a stranger in the airport in that city which then the police did a good job but then it would seem like the jails in that city may become a bit crowded after a while. It seems like he pleaded guilty to something that never actually took place. If this was the guys intent then he is a hypocite of the first magnetude and should resign but I think what the police were doing here needs to be examined a little more closely.

Cruising in public areas involves more risk for the guy on the prowl than anybody else. Consider arrest, physical confrontation and the like. That is why cruising protocols are tentative at first, toe tapping, hand motions, gazing into a booth, and the like. Once a receptive response is provided, actions become more direct. At some point, two men end up in the same toilet stall. It shouldn't bother anyone too much unless there is excessive banging into the side of the stall, overly loud moans, and similar cheap theatrics.

I would assume that the senator was offering to perform oral sex - in the free market of sex, he's much too old to be entitled to a blow job. But whether anyone should trust their most treasured genetalia to a republican senator is questionable.

There is no evidence that any man has ever engaged in sex with another man in an airport toilet against his will.

The most disgusting activity that goes on in public toilets is the intended purpose. Defecation stinks and involves unpleasant noises.

It is not necessary to use police (an expensive personnel item) to deal with sex (proposed or performed) in public restrooms. Civilian staff can disrupt cruising activity without arresting anyone. Men cruising public restrooms (or similar settings) want to be unobtrusive, and the last thing a guy wants to happen is someone calling him out as an offender against public decorum and tasteful behavior. Better to be addressed by some hired lout in rude terms than to be arrested for seeking a few moments of pleasure in the desert of air travel.

The (Minnesota) Metropolitan Airports Commission is always after more money - why don't they just designate a public toilet for cruising purposes and charge admission?

Cruising in public areas involves more risk for the guy on the prowl than anybody else. Consider arrest, physical confrontation and the like. That is why cruising protocols are tentative at first, toe tapping, hand motions, gazing into a booth, and the like. Once a receptive response is provided, actions become more direct. At some point, two men end up in the same toilet stall. It shouldn't bother anyone too much unless there is excessive banging into the side of the stall, overly loud moans, and similar cheap theatrics.

I would assume that the senator was offering to perform oral sex - in the free market of sex, he's much too old to be entitled to a blow job. But whether anyone should trust their most treasured genetalia to a republican senator is questionable.

There is no evidence that any man has ever engaged in sex with another man in an airport toilet against his will.

The most disgusting activity that goes on in public toilets is the intended purpose. Defecation stinks and involves unpleasant noises.

It is not necessary to use police (an expensive personnel item) to deal with sex (proposed or performed) in public restrooms. Civilian staff can disrupt cruising activity without arresting anyone. Men cruising public restrooms (or similar settings) want to be unobtrusive, and the last thing a guy wants to happen is someone calling him out as an offender against public decorum and tasteful behavior. Better to be addressed by some hired lout in rude terms than to be arrested for seeking a few moments of pleasure in the desert of air travel.

The (Minnesota) Metropolitan Airports Commission is always after more money - why don't they just designate a public toilet for cruising purposes and charge admission?

Your article is write very well, I like it very much.We sell all shoes of Air Jordan Shoes series,both for men and women,you can buy any Air Jordans and Jordan Shoes here.Get your own nike air Now!