As usual, conservative columnist George Will cut to the heart of the matter Sunday on ABC News’ “This Week,” this time the GOP’s aghast reaction to Sen. Larry Craig’s arrest: “Double standard? There are triple and quadruple standards. He was arrested for lewd behavior that consisted of signaling an interest in sex. It goes on in 10,000 bars every night in our country. Obviously, this is about homosexuality and the country coming to grips with it and particularly the Republican Party, which has done so well electorally in recent elections by being against gay rights.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
58 Comments
Rhonda is making a wild leap here. Many Republicans have been against gay marriage. I don’t think politicians have tried to outlaw consensual gay sex in private among adults for quite a while. I don’t think Sen. Craig signaled any interest in marrying the Minnesota cop. In fact, I have no idea why it is considered illegal in Minnesota to signal an interest in gay sex, if that was even what Sen. Craig was doing.
Bashing homosexuals is never a losing thing for the Republican party. Bashing blacks and Mexicans is a little less likely but still a winning thing for the Republicans as long as they use code words to do it.
Apparently, you are what you hate the most.
“”"Rhonda is making a wild leap here. Many Republicans have been against gay marriage. I don’t think politicians have tried to outlaw consensual gay sex in private among adults for quite a while.”"”
You don’t think so huh?? Read this from the Texas GOP platform that GW Bush ran on:
The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy….We publicly rebuke judges Chief Justice Murphy and John Anderson, who ruled that the 100 year-old Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional, and ask that all members of the Republican Party of Texas oppose their re-election.
You people need to wake up to what the goals of the Republicans REALLY are here. It is not about “gay marriage” but about the complete sexual oppression of the country as a whole. They dream of the good old days when homosexuals were in prisons and even cohabitation was a felony. This is where they wish to take your country even though they themselves are sexual deviants.
Lewd=What those other guys do.
Bottom Line – hand signals and toe tapping will not hold up in court as legitimate cause to arrest.Verbal, written, or explicitly implied (exposure) are legitimate communications for sex, but toe tapping is something we all do everyday.As much as I despise the GOP, I equally despise an arrest for toe tapping and finger waggling.Who knows, maybe Sen. Craig’s intent was to find a gay man and then suggest they go somewhere private for sex.Whatever the case, toe tapping and finger wiggling is not grounds for arrest.
“As much as I despise the GOP, I equally despise an arrest for toe tapping and finger waggling.”
Oh, Mr. Craig, we just found you a very convincing attorney…
Check out the obscene parsing of the English language by the Craigster:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14176502
George Will is such a freaking Republican shill, I’m surprised The Eagle doesn’t print him on the Op Ed page.
He wasn’t arrested for showing “an interest in sex,” Mr. Will (dumbass), he was arrested for intending to have sex IN A PUBLIC RESTROOM.
Five year old kids for instance should not be exposed to lewd and lascivious behavior in public places and spaces.
Duh.
If there was no law against soliciting sex in a PUBLIC men’s room in Minnesota, then why was Larry Craig arrested and then charged?
If this entire situation is only because of some policeman’s vindetta against Craig, then there must have been some evidence somewhere for Craig to have been charged.
Furhermore, Craig plead down to disorderly conduct. If he truly believes he was not soliciting sex in a public men’s room, and just because has as habit of that wide stance and foot tapping in bathroom stalls (??), then why plead guilty?
As I remember reading the details, the policeman also watched as Craig was looking through the crack in the door to see the policeman inside the stall – THEN Craig went into the next stall. If Craig was not up to something suspicious – then he should have just gotten into the first stall available, do his business and get the hell out of there.
Lastly, Craig showed his arrogance when he produced his Senate business card and asked the policeman what he thought about that. If that is not arrogance and feeling that he is above the law – then I do not know what is.
The Republican party has a huge problem with their perverts. Notice I did not say homosexuals because I do not believe homosexuality is a problem. The Republicans have a problem with their closeted homosexuals who seem to have this need to solicit sex in public places.
Actually, the point about “signaling” is a good point. As the article said, “signaling” is done all the time in bars and no one is arrested.
I’ve seen and known women that make provocative poses purposely in order to gain attention. That would be an example of signaling. Most men have had their crotch “stared” at by women then followed by that slight squint and sparkle in their eye.
However, is that a positive signal or merely interactive non-verbal body language games. Also, who really knows the intention of how deep into the game the woman or in this case the man wants to go?
It’s a confusing world we live in as not all signals mean what we think they mean.
A smile from across the room may just be the personality of the woman that is smiling at you. It doesn’t mean she wants to have sex with you. Women are usually a bit more complicated than that.
With that said, can a standard of signals be adequately described in a court of law to satisfy the elements for a prosecution?
I mean if someone with drummer tendencies goes to utilize the facilities and taps out an old Gene Cruppa drum beat with his feet is he really signaling a desire for sex or just has happy feet?
Obviously, reaching under a stall with hand extended palm open is not exactly the prudent action to take, but does it violate any laws on the book?
I would really like to see the local ordinance that describes that type of behavior as “illegal.” Personally, I don’t think it exists and Senator Spectre comments may be on target when he says that Craig could beat the charges.
There is also the “moral court” of small tolerance. Evidently we have seen that in the media and on the Senate side. This “moral court” without due process can decide by using gray areas of ethics to get someone removed or at least pressure them to be removed.
How fair is it in accordance with the law? Probably not fair at all, but it happens all the time. To ostracize someone due to an ethical violation is something that will never be fully described in a court of law as we haven’t really defined what our own ethical standards are as yet.
There is no equivalence between cruising a bar for a hook up and intending to have anonymous sex in a public restroom.
The first one is legal. The second one is not.
All this spinning by the right-wing is truly hilarious, especially considering how outraged — OUTRAGED, I tell you! — they supposedly get at “moral relativism.”
Also, Kansas, your description of “crotch staring” by women sounds a lot like wishful thinking on your part . . .
You should try going to a bar where the women aren’t strippers and / or street walkers for a change.
Having trouble with your typekey sign-in Capn? :)
What is it with gays and restrooms? Is there some link between scatology and homosexuality? Some college researcher should be given a grant to determine a link.
And what is it with neo-Nazis and never getting laid?
Not really, Kansas.
And what’s it to you?
Just making you zip up your fly Capn, before you start trolling in public. :)
“he was arrested for intending to have sex IN A PUBLIC RESTROOM.”Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 05, 2007 at 09:14 AM
Prove it.
In defense of Craig I have to agree with a lot of what Kansas said. What happens if I get one of those tunes ’stuck in my head’ and I am humming or whatever? Is that some sort of ’signal’? How would I know?
On the other hand; Craig did, after time to consult with his attorneys, plead GUILTY. I think this would make a GREAT case for entrapment; in fact I’d seek ACLU representation.
And even if it were some sort of ‘pickup line’? As long as he drops it after the other party says ‘not interested’ then what’s the problem.
The problem the Republics have here is that all too often they have been the ones pushing such ‘morality’ laws.
sol – I think that is pretty much what he pled guilty of (but reduced charge)
I fully believe that he was soliciting. I heard the police tape. He was lying thru his teeth. But to then leap to sex in a public place is unfounded. Had he made it that far with the cop and Craig said “Let’s go RIGHT HERE” then he’s busted. Is it illegal to try to pick someone up – male or female – in public?
I think he pled guilty to avoid a trial and this thing getting even nastier. MHO
If the governor of Texas sodomizes his wife in the governor’s mansion, can he be impeached?
Do you think we should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate?
There are many issues in this whole Craig deal.
Should a person be arrested for intending to commit an act that would be illegal? How far should a witnessing officer that is present allow the person to go towards committing that act before an arrest could/should be made?
Apparently, that bathroom, was a location where illegal public sex acts frequently occurred. From the Officer’s perspective, it appeared that the person in the next stall was trying to initiate that, so the Officer decided to make the arrest at the point he did. Could he have waited longer, sure. Could he have played along and waited until Craig pants were down and he was huggin the sink, sure.
From Craig’s perspective, he could easily defend his case I think. It would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what his intentions in the bathroom were.
Of course he would have to defend himself in a public trial. “Senator, you were doing things that seems to have no rational justification other than trying to get the attention of the person in the stall next to you. The methods you used are commonly used by men in public restrooms like that to indicate to others there that they are looking for a ‘hook-up’. For the record, what were your intentions in that bathroom stall?” I think Craig foresaw that sort of courtroom scenario and decided it would be easier to plead as he did.
Were the arrest charges a little weak, perhaps.Could the Senator have beaten them in court, probably.Did the Senator want to have to defend his action in a public trial? No way.
Ummm, Kansas, signaling in a singles bar is one thing. People who go there know what they’re getting into. A public restroom in an airport should be off limits just for the sake of creepiness.
Then again, I think most social conservatives are pretty creepy to begin with.
“If the governor of Texas sodomizes his wife in the governor’s mansion, can he be impeached?
Do you think we should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate?
Posted by: leftcoaster | September 05, 2007 at 10:48 AM”
Good questions.
In Kansas, oral or anal sex with someone of either sex other than your spouse is illegal whether they consent or not. Maybe there is a similar law in Texas. I think at one time, those things were prohibited regardless of if they occured with your spouse or not, maybe that was the case in TX when the Bushes were there.
“A public restroom in an airport should be off limits just for the sake of creepiness.”
What about on the plane? Like picking up a conversation with the pretty young lady that is seated next to you? Like flirting with the stewardess? Or talking to someone at the gift shop?
Guys try to pick up girls pretty much at any open opportunity. Should those be illegal too?
I’d be disgusted and pissed if someone propositioned me in a restroom, but none of my rights have been violated and I’d be hard pressed to find a law that was broken.
“… In Kansas, oral or anal sex with someone of either sex other than your spouse is illegal whether they consent or not …”Posted by: brian | September 05, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Brian,That’s a joke, isn’t it ???(pls. forgive my naive european view of the world)
Werner, brian is not joking. Sorry, no cite for the statute in question.
Just about the whole state is a bunch of criminals then, I bet. ;)
Vaughn,
o.k., but has anybody been sentenced on that in the last 100 years ?(every legislation has some relicts that are no longer enforced)
“Buggery” laws are on a lot of the books in U.S. states.
Kansas
* Statute: 21-3505, Sodomy. Unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas.
* Penalty: 6 months/$1000* Classification: Misdemeanor* Restrictions: Same-sex only
Kansas is the only state with discriminatory penalties for consensual sex by minors. Kansas law makes any sexual activity involving a person under 16 illegal. The 1999 “Romeo and Juliet” law, however, provides lesser penalties for consensual sex when one partner is 19 or under and the other partner’s age is within four years. Convicted of sodomy for having sex in 2000 at age 18 with a 14-year-old boy, Matthew R. Limon was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison. Had Limon’s partner been an underage girl, he could have been sentenced at most to one year and three months in prison.
Statute
21-3505 Criminal sodomy
(a) Criminal sodomy is:
(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex or between a person and an animal;
(2) sodomy with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age; or
(3) causing a child 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age to engage in sodomy with any person or animal.
(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(2) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.
(c) Criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(1) is a class B nonperson misdemeanor.
Criminal sodomy as provided in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony.
Sexual Offender Registry
I’m responding to your inquiry concerning Megan’s law and registration requirements in Kansas. I have included the statutes and if you want more specific language you can go to http://www.washlaw.edu, go to Kansas, find the statutes and you can do a search there to get the specific statutory language.
Consensual sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex is criminalized in Kansas under the criminal sodomy statute (21-3505(a)(1) which refers back to the definition of sodomy found in 21-3501(2)) Under the Kansas offender registration law someone convicted of (a)(1) criminal sodomy must register if the “victim” is less than 18 years of age. See K.S.A. 22-4902(a)(4)(B).
Otherwise, persons convicted of this subsection of criminal sodomy do not have to register. However, Kansas (and I suspect other states) has this strange catch-all phrase requiring registration by those convicted of “any act which at the time of sentencing for the offense has been determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have been sexually motivated.
As used in this paragraph, ’sexually motivated’ means that one of the purposes for which the defendant committed the crime was for the purpose of the defendant’s “sexual gratificaton” See K.S.A. 22-4902(c)(12). I’m not sure what this could ultimately include but it sounds very broad to me. It has not been challenged in Kansas.
Also, the Kansas legislature just passed what’s being referred to as the “Romeo and Juliet” provision making registration unnecessary for some sex offenses when the victim is young and the perpetrator is a few years older and they are of the opposite sex. We are still analyzing just what was intended by this legislation and how it effects us.
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/kansas/kansas.htm
Werner, the “criminal sodomy” statute is K.S.A. 21-3505. A quick perusal of the appellate court opinions shows convictions upheld as recently as 2004, although I didn’t read the cases to determine if there were any circumstances which might have contributed to this, such as one of the parties to the unlawful act was a minor, e.g.
I believe the Court of Appeals in the Limon case (this is from memory from a seminar I attended for CLE credits) held that 21-3505 was not unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas, citing a rational basis for the ruling.
I think your right Vaughn, here’s the FindLaw version of the case.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102
Even though Kansas sodomy laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, they remain on the books. Since they’re on the books, any bigoted cop with an agenda can arrest same-sex consenting adults, charge them with violating the law, and lock them up until a judge orders them released.
This scenario has happened at least once (that I know of) in the past year. The cop _knew_ about Lawrence v Texas (the SCOTUS case), and knew the accused would be released after spending a weekend in jail.
This is basically nothing more than legalized harassment. It’s legal for the cops to make these kinds of arrests, and there is NOTHING the victims can do. No recourse, no remedy.
Oh I am SO loving this!
Now the guy is parsing his resignation. Hey Republicans? Get out the REALLY long knives!
oops, more here,
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, declared unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited sexual acts between same sex couples. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the right to privacy protects a right for adults to engage in private, consensual homosexual activity. Justice Kennedy’s opinion expressly overruled the Court’s decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which had come to an opposite conclusion. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concurred in the judgment and said that she would not overrule Bowers, but would declare the Texas law unconstitutional on equal protection grounds because it prohibits sexual acts between same sex couples that are allowed between opposite sex couples. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, in which he argued that states should be able to make a moral judgment against homosexual conduct and have that enforced through law.
As part of the ruling in Lawrence in 2003, SCOTUS sent the Limon case back to Kansas with instructions to resentence based on the Lawrence ruling. AG Kline and two judges on the Kansas Appeals court decided to ignore SCOTUS and keep Limon locked up for longer than he deserved anyway. In 2005, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against Kline:
We conclude that K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3522 , the Kansas unlawful voluntary sexual relations statute, does not pass rational basis scrutiny under the United States Constitution Equal Protection Clause or, because we traditionally apply the same analysis to our state constitution, under the Kansas Constitution Equal Protection Clause. [snip] We hold K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3522 unconstitutional as violating the equal protection provisions of the United States and Kansas Constitutions and strike from the statute the words “and are members of the opposite sex.” We further hold that Limon’s conviction and sentence for criminal sodomy pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3505(a)(2) violate his right to equal protection of the laws.
Thanks, Tom; was unaware of the Kansas Supremes decision in Limon, as I generally don’t do criminal law “updates” for CLE credit….
How does one join the secret GOP(Gay or Perv.) organization?
“he was arrested for intending to have sex IN A PUBLIC RESTROOM.”Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 05, 2007 at 09:14 AM
Prove it.
Posted by: SolDevVB | September 05, 2007 at 10:30 AM
He pled guilty?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/craig_report.pdf
Senator Craig was NOT arrested for attempting to have sex.
He was arrested with:
1. Interference with Privacy2. Disorderly Conduct
Craig was foolish for pleading guilty. Any decent attorney could have made sure he was found innocent based on the evidence provided in this report.
Craig’s INTENT may have been to solicit sex, but the police officer did not Seal the Deal, giving time for Craig to go further and at least verbally indicate what his intentions were.
In reading this report, its disgusting to see the time police waste trying to catch these people in victimless crimes, while 50% of murderers in the US go free.
This is a GREAT AP headline:
“Lawyer says Senate should not probe Craig”
HAHAHAHAHA
Max, its my observations that opposition to decrimalizing victimless crimes mostly comes from conservatives. mention legalization of drugs or prostitution,gambling or see who opposed the Supreme Courts decision regarding sodomy and you’ll find conservatives. So much for small governments
Tom,Maybe the follow-up headline could be ‘Craig stomps his foot and demands to be probed, to clear his name’
“that opposition to decrimalizing victimless crimes mostly comes from conservatives. mention legalization of drugs or prostitution,gambling or see who opposed the Supreme Courts decision regarding sodomy and you’ll find conservatives. So much for small governments
Posted by: Tom Paine | September 05, 2007 at 01:07 PM ”
Hence the ‘conservative’ label – they are resistant to change.
(Resistant even in the face of reason to change or lack of reason not to change)
This guy is too incompetent to be a Senator. He has played this thing wrong from the get go.
He THOUGHT that when he produced his Senator card, it would just end. Probably, that has worked for him, as it does for many Senators, before. When that didn’t work, he should have played indignant and stupid. But in the tape, HE is the first to mention homosexuality! HE accuses the officer of entrapment. (The officer made a signal and he responded.) Then the moron pleads instead of fighting it. THEN he comes out protesting that he isn’t gay. A better move would have been to say “I had a minor misunderstanding with an officer in Minneapolis. I’ve paid my fine and that is the end of it.”
NOW he can’t decide whether he is in the Senate or out. I feel sorry for his family for what he is putting them through.
I do NOT feel sorry for his party. They are just getting back some of what they dish out all the time. TOO they should suffer some for so quickly bailing on one of their own. Don’t worry, they won’t learn from it. They never do.
I found it curious on Saturday when the announcement was made that September 30 was the date Senator Craig intended to resign. I decided that by placing a date on it would allow for an orderly transition process to occur. Little did it occur to me that he might be delaying the seemingly inevitable so he could just change his mind.
Looking at this from a defense counsel perspective, it makes sense if the senator doesn’t resign right now. To do so takes a lot of wind from any arguments on trying to overturn the plea. His strongest position, it seems to me, is to continue in office for the time being at least.
From a GOP Senate leadership perspective, this may be the worst news of the week.
Craig can always disavow the police report–he didn’t write it (or can he? the guilty plea rather complicates the matter!).
IANAL, but it seems withdrawing a guilty plea is a pretty tough to do (ask Zacharias Moussoui).
And, legally relevant or not, there is the little matter of the man who claimed to have sex with him, in another state, IN A BATHROOM, long before this story broke.
I do, wonder, however, about the toe-tapping, hand-signal business, too. I suppose if you stick any part of your body (ahem) into someone else’s stall, that could be presumed as suggesting lewd intent.
Should prove to be quite entertaining.
Do you remember Gordon MacKenzie?
Back during the Vietnam Era, he was an Andy Rooney-ish commentator on Canadian radio.
He got his 15 minutes of fame in this country with an essay called, I think, “The Americans.” It got on the radio in this country and he immediately put together a bunch of his commentaries on and album that immediately shot to the top of Billboard Magazine’s Worst Seller list.
But I used to have a copy.
Right after “The Americans,” where he sung the praises of LBJ or Nixon or both, about how the only hope of survival was American victory in Vietnam, came another of his observations.
I swear I’m not making this up.
Gordon MacKenzie stated that any time he saw any man enter a toilet stall in a public restroom, he knew that man was inferior or sick.
This was the late 1960s, so it didn’t have anything to do with anonymous gay sex.
No, Gordon MacKenzie declared any man who enters a toilet stall in public obviously doesn’t understand that a “civilized” man never deficates unless he can fully bathe afterwards.
It’s the damnedest commentary you could ever imagine and he included it on his album. He was proud of it!
But now it dawns on me: if you’re a male, you don’t go into a toilet stall unless you’re sick, or you’ve screwed up you bowell-movement timing. Or if that’s the place that gets you anonymous same-gender sex.
No wonder so many Republic Party advocates are urging Larry Craig to renounce his resignation and run again for the Senate.
They’re demanding represntation!
Max, its my observations that opposition to decrimalizing victimless crimes mostly comes from conservatives. mention legalization of drugs or prostitution,gambling or see who opposed the Supreme Courts decision regarding sodomy and you’ll find conservatives. So much for small governments
Posted by: Tom Paine | September 05, 2007 at 01:07 PM
I don’t see a crime in some guy in a restroom trying to pick up another guy. Stupid yes, but not a crime.
As for gambling, already legal and sponsored by every state in the country now.
Drugs? I won’t go as far as legalizing that – and I don’t see drugs as a victimless crime.
Prostitution? I don’t want to see it on the streets, but I’m not sure that a personal transaction between 2 (or more I guess) consenting adults should be illegal. It certainly isn’t effectively enforced.
And Tom, I think you would probably label me as conservative. :)
The Democrats appear to be overly interested on what went on in the stalls.
Do they have a hidden agenda?
Do they want a piece of the action?
Are they looking for new ways to improvise their own “tap” code?
Uh? The domocrats are almost completely silent on this affair.
That is just as it should be. Craigs activities are the concern of his constituents and his party. He has fulfilled his legal obligations. If his party or constituents have a problem with anything he has done? Well that is up to their discretion.
Gotta love it.
“I think this would make a GREAT case for entrapment; in fact I’d seek ACLU representation.”
Oh, now that would be one hell of a picture of pure hypocrisy, given what MOST of the Reich Wing thinks of the ACLU… I still laugh when I think that Limbaugh was once defended for something by the ACLU…. But it doesnt stop him from bashing on them every chance he gets!!
LOL priceless!!
I am praying Craig stays in the Senate. I pray even more that he runs again. An easy pick up for the Democrats.
What a bunch of crap. He was bullied into his plea, that’s why he did it. The cops intimidated him. This whole case brings light to how out of control law enforcement has become.
I’m sure he was trolling, but so what. I’m personally insulted that tax dollars are used to conduct police activity such as this!
Now whoever mentioned “victimless crimes” and included prostitution in that, I’m sorry, but I disagree with you 1000%. Those girls are ruined by that lifestyle. No matter how for it they are at the time, no matter how much money they rake in, 99% of them end up broke, usually addicted to something, and worthless! Dancers are no different! SAD SAD SAD SAD!