Tammy Bruce: Homosexuality Archives

Homosexuality Archives

Senator Larry Craig In 'Lewd Conduct' Trouble

Hello, Sailor!

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID). Not exactly George Michael.

The hypocritical Republican meltdown continues. This time it's the revelation that Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) was arrested on a lewd conduct charge in an airport bathroom.

Craig is a 62-year-old married man and allegedly, despite efforts to keep the arrest report secret, indicated in code to another man (a policeman--dontcha just hate it when that happens?) in the next stall that he wanted to engage in "lewd conduct." Craig, a senator with a 100% favorable rating from the Christian Coalition, quietly plead guilty.

Senator Pleads to Disorderly Conduct

Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, which first reported the case, said on its Web site Monday that Craig was arrested June 11 by a plainclothes officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in a men's restroom at the airport. [For there to be complaints, plural, means this was something that bothered more than one person, and long enough to get an undercover cop in here to catch him--T]

Craig said in a statement issued by his office that he was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.

"At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions," he said. "I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have plead guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously." [Yeah, I always plead guilty to something I'm not guilty of just to make it go away especially when I'm a US Senator, but I'm not gay and it involves gay sex.--T]

Roll Call, citing the report, said Sgt. Dave Karsnia made the arrest after an encounter in which he was seated in a stall next to a stall occupied by Craig. Karsnia described Craig tapping his foot, which Karsnia said he "recognized as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct."

Roll Call quoted the Aug. 8 police report as saying that Craig had handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a member of the Senate.

"What do you think about that?" Craig is alleged to have said, according to the report.

Last fall, Craig called allegations from a gay-rights activist that he's had homosexual relationships "completely ridiculous."

Well, not so ridiculous apparently. A blogger named Mike Rogers notes that he's the one who "outed" Craig last year, and has followed up ever since. Rogers has another link to a Roll Call story with more details and where Craig sloppily attempts to explain how such a "misunderstanding" could have happened. Apparently it has something to do with a "wide stance" when relieving one's self. For crying out loud.

Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper, made an excellent point in a commentary about the situation:

The hypocrisy of a closeted conservative politician voting against the interests of the gay community while engaging in some of the most stereotypically harmful behavior attributed to gays is maddening. We will now have to endure breathless reporting about tawdry toilet sex on CNN, thanks to Craig.

Naff then goes on to note that Craig can help make things better by voting for hate crimes legislation. Well, not only are not all gay men engaging in tawdry bathroom sex with strangers, not all gay people think "hate crimes" legislation is good idea, either. Some of us would rather not become the establishment Thought Police, with laws that position some people as more equal, more important, than others. But that's another subject for another time. [Many of you do know I've written extensively about the problem of "hate crime" legislation in my book The New Thought Police, and in various columns].

At any rate, Craig also has a statement about the incident on his senate webpage, which for the most part says he plead guilty for no good reason. Yeah.

Posted by Tammy · August 27, 2007 04:28 PM · Permalink · Comments (9)
Corruption | Crime | Homosexuality | Mental Health, Lack Of | Politics

Edwards 'Not Comfortable' Around The Gays

Johnny--not comfortable with Teh Ghey

Former Aide Takes Shots at Edwards

Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards's 1998 Senate campaign in North Carolina, does not remember his onetime client very fondly. In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"

"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."

Well now, I'm confused. What does he mean by 'uncomfortable' anyway? The happy, fun, goofy way I'm uncomfortable when I think of Angelina Jolie, or the disgusted, nauseated uncomfortable when I think of Rosie O'Donnell?

Meeee.....yow! Who took my cheeseburger?!?

Shrum also reveals how angry the Silky Pony got when he told him he wasn't going to work on his campaign:

When Shrum called to say he had decided to join the presidential campaign of another former client, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Edwards was angry. "I can't believe you would do this to me and my family. I will never, ever forget it, even on my deathbed," he quotes Edwards as saying.

The Tiny Gay Squirrel says: "Now that is gay."

How Can There Be A Top 50 Gays List...

When so many incredibly powerful gays, especially in Washington, DC, are hiding deeply inside a tomb-like closet? Well, Out Magazine has presumed to do it, naming the supposed "Power 50: The Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America." You may be surprised by some on the list, but some of the most interesting,and powerful gay men and women are not on the list because they're not out. It's just remarkably ironic that the very people who should be on a list about power are not...because they're so powerful.

That quandary makes a list like this comparable to a really good souffle--that falls. It had really good potential and has a lot of the right ingredients, but things are just not quite right, or complete, or handled properly, and boom--it becomes a souffle, sort of, but not really.

And gee, I'm not on the list. I may need to take a whole Tylenol PM tonight to get over that.

I betcha there were a bunch of Nervous Nellies (pardon the pun) waiting to see if their names were on that list. And I can tell you, several men and women in the halls of power (like Congress) have breathed a sigh of relief.

In the same issue, Out also has a Michael Musto article assessing the "Glass Closet," or the celebrities everyone on the coasts knows are gay, but somehow remain semi-closeted (or completely) for everyone else.

It reminds me of one of the better articles from New York Magazine which, in 2001, nicely illustrated the hypocrisy of supposedly 'out' celebrities, while challenging the need for a closet at all. From six years ago, and it still reads as completely relevant today.

There's one graph in that piece which notes something which I've known for quite some time courtesy of being on talk radio for almost 15 years now--the regular folks out there in fly-over land are actually pretty darn aware and tolerant of us pesky marginal types make Los Angeles and New York at least moderately interesting. It was true six years ago, and it's even more so today. here's that snippet:

Inside Out
The closet has finally outlived its usefulness. So why do gay celebrities insist on staying in? And why do journalists guard the door?

Back in the fifties -- when exposing people as homosexual would subject them not only to ostracism but also to violence and even jail -- the gay cover-up made sense. But these are vastly different times.

The closet I remember was a dark, lonely place, but the one gay celebrities now occupy is of the giant, walk-in variety, with ample room for friends and lovers, acquaintances, even journalists -- as long as we're discreet. These people enjoy all the benefits of an openly gay life -- they go to discos and clubs, take their lovers to public events, contribute to gay charities. They demand complete discretion from the media while displaying none themselves -- secure in the knowledge that the media will look the other way. And we do. Journalists play along in the sincere belief that they are protecting gay people, but in doing so they serve the interests of a few individuals at the expense of the larger community....

Maybe it's time to reexamine the rules. the continuing prohibition on discussing sexual orientation is based on a presumption that while people on the coasts are sophisticated enough to accept gay celebrities, the masses in between are too backward and too bigoted to be let in on the truth. It's a patronizing notion. If nothing else, the cultural changes of the past few years have proved that Americans are more tolerant than they're given credit for; Will & Grace, after all, is a hit not only in New York but also in Kansas.

Read both articles, the current Musto piece and this old enough to be pre-9/11 piece. Both are thoughtful looks at a the changing gay scene and America's relationship with it. It's also interesting reading if you want to spice up your Easter weekend ;)

« Close It

Posted by Tammy · April 7, 2007 11:06 PM · Permalink · Comments (2)
Celebrity | Cultural Commentary | Gay Issues | Hollywood/Films | Homosexuality

By Category

By Month

Homosexuality Archives

Senator Larry Craig In 'Lewd Conduct' Trouble

Edwards 'Not Comfortable' Around The Gays

How Can There Be A Top 50 Gays List...