creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Linda Chavez
Linda Chavez
19 Sep 2014
Quit Defending Abuse

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson's arrest on child abuse charges has sparked a huge debate … Read More.

12 Sep 2014
Civilized Sport

I'm not much of a football fan, never have been, but I've lived most of my life in households where games … Read More.

5 Sep 2014
Can Obama Win the Fight Against ISIS?

President Obama, in the past, has demonstrated a way with written words, and he's done so again, this time in … Read More.

Abuse of Power

Comment

There is something more than a little bizarre with the latest Washington feeding frenzy over Sen. Larry Craig. Don't get me wrong. I think what Sen. Craig did in the men's bathroom in Minneapolis was gross and sleazy. But is it really worthy of the press attention it has received this week? I just can't imagine a Democratic member of Congress being subjected to the same treatment if the facts, as we know them so far, were identical.

Let's say that Senator X, a prominent Democrat, was alleged to have, on rare occasion, solicited homosexual acts in public places. He never touched anyone or exposed himself or did anything else overtly illegal or anti-social, but merely tried to engage other men he thought might be gay by making eye contact or through surreptitious hand signals or, as in Craig's case, toe-tapping.

There were never any complaints against Sen. X by heterosexual men who were offended by his overtures. And only one or two gay men had ever come forward to say he had engaged in consensual sex acts with Sen. X. Then, Sen. X gets arrested in what appears to be a questionable sting.

The sting goes down like this: Police officers are set up to hang around a public bathroom known to be a favorite cruising spot for gay men. Sen. X comes into the bathroom and then stands outside a stall occupied by one of the policemen, who is there to catch gay men.

According to the actual police report, Sen. X did not overtly solicit sex or make illegal sexual contact with the police officer but merely looked through the crack of an occupied stall from a distance of three feet, then entered an adjoining stall, tapped his toes a few times, and swiped his hand along the bottom of the bathroom stall divider three times.

Now this behavior might have been annoying, even offensive, if the man in the other stall were there attending to bodily functions. But he wasn't. He was a police officer who was there solely to catch homosexual men soliciting others for consensual sex.

If Democratic Sen. X's hypothetical arrest ever made it into the papers — doubtful, unless the senator chose to make it public — I suspect the tone of the coverage would be rather different than Sen.

Craig's treatment.

I can just imagine the Washington Post inveighing against police entrapment and homophobia and demanding that the private sex lives of politicians remain private unless their behavior involved an abuse of their official duties.

Of course, it isn't just the media who are going after Sen. Craig. His fellow Republicans are piling on, calling for ethics investigations and, understandably, trying to distance themselves from him. Some are even asking him to resign. This has been a disaster for Republicans, whose base is far more concerned about morality and traditional values than are most Democrats. But this is all the more reason you might expect the press to be calling for a little perspective here.

A lot of people would consider what Sen. Craig did immoral. Others, especially gay activists and liberals, would consider him a hypocrite because he has voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage exclusively as the legal union of one man and one woman. But immorality and hypocrisy are hardly uncommon characteristics in Washington — or most other places for that matter.

Sen. Craig's denial that he is gay or has ever engaged in homosexual acts enrages some gay rights militants. The issue was first raised some 25 years ago when Craig stood accused, along with several other members of Congress, of having sex with congressional pages, allegations that were subsequently withdrawn.

Sen. Craig would have been better advised to remain silent on his sex life, but the media hypocrisy in this affair is at least as troubling as Sen. Craig's.

On the one hand, the media generally regards sexual orientation as a private matter, moreover one that is morally neutral. But because Sen. Craig is a conservative, although not someone who has had a history of gay-bashing, the media have had no qualms about violating his privacy. Indeed, Craig's home newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, spent five months delving into the senator's sex life.

Sen. Craig's political career is probably over. The abuse of power, however, was not Sen. Craig's but the media's, who pick and choose whose privacy they will violate on a partisan basis.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
The facts are that the "mainstream" media (NYT ABC CBS NBC Etc. Etc.) ignored this senators anti-gay stance at the time it was reported he'd solicited sex from another male in a public bathroom. It can hardly be called an abuse of power when the media delves into the sex lives of public sevants - though I agree it's not the "right" thing to do!

I agree that the "Media" treated Bill Clinton, Senator Craig and others unfairly. The "Media" react to each other as you well know. As regards abuse of power, you will recall that republican leaders' reason for wanting an investigation was due to their outrage that this idiot whipped out proof that he was a united states senator and attempted to threaten a police officer with a "What do you think about that?"

Hyocracy is not in question when it comes to this particularly immoral idiot - it's about his history of life destroying decisions regarding gay Americans. No marriage is not one of them. This sickening and self loathing gay man actually opposed federal hate crimes law to cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias. He voted against a bill to outlaw employment discrimination based on sexual orientation!!! That is more in the realm of evil than anything remotely related to mere hypocrisy. Not to mention "bizarre"
Comment: #1
Posted by: Phren
Thu May 19, 2011 2:51 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Linda Chavez
Sep. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Newspaper ContributorsUpdated 22 Sep 2014
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 22 Sep 2014
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 21 Sep 2014

5 Feb 2010 Abstinence Education Works After All

7 Sep 2007 Why We Still Need a Civil Rights Watchdog

5 Dec 2008 Silver Lining in the Downturn