Civil Liberties and Larry Craig

I'm sure we are all having fun over another example of Republican hypocripsy on gay issues. But is anyone else disturbed about Craig being arrested for merely propositioning someone--and doing it in a way that most straight men would hardly recognize it as such?

I can see why laws against people actually having sex in a public restroom might be a good idea. But laws against a fairly subtle come-on? What is the point---except to harass gay men.

Anyone have an idea how often this kind of harassment occurs in Philly?

In the meantime, as a discussion in Slate points out, this incident has given new meaning to the words "airport layover."

it's normally during sweeps week

check out this April, 2005 story from NBC 10:

Philadelphia Police Department's vice squad told NBC 10 News that the managers at the store called them when they suspected illegal sexual activity was taking place in the bathroom on the second floor.
A sting was set up and conducted over five-hour period. Investigators said that a least 50 men came through the bathroom during that period of time, but police were only able to arrest 16.
FeedRoom

You beat me!

I was totally just going to google that.

Marc, If I were a gay man,

Marc,

If I were a gay man, I would not want to buy into that argument. It assumes too many things that I am not willing to accept. First, it assumes that only gay men proposition each other in this sleazy way (and doing this type of thing in a public bathroom is sleazy, IMO). Second, this argument accepts the notion that being gay is something to be ashamed of. I'm not willing to accept either as fact.

I'm not gay, and I don't know if Craig is gay or not. But if he is, I don't believe that he his representative of gay culture. I'm sure that most gays would think Craig's type of proposition was disgusting, whether he's gay or straight. I've been told that in-the-closet gays normally do these type of things; because they don't want anyone to know. Openly gay men don't have to do this.

If I don't know what I'm talking about, somebody please correct me.

Straight men make sleazy come-ons, too,

don't they? And in public. Craig's actions were actually pretty subtle. I've seen a lot sleazier (and, sometimes, borderline violent) come-ons from straight men. But, of course, in our sexist and homophobic society lots of people laugh at sleazy straight come-ons and want to see much less sleazy gay ones prosecuted. And its not just come-ons but public sex. I've seen women giving men head or a hand job in a back corner of a bar far more than I've seen men giving men head or a hand job in a restroom (it's 2-0). Why isn't the vice squad trolling in those places? I guarantee you that, if attractive (or probably not so attractive) undercover policewomen were offering blow jobs to drunk straight men at 1am in the dark corners of some Philly bars, they would arrest far more people than they do in the restrooms of our department stores. If you read the police report of the Craig case carefully, the arresting officer encouraged Craig.

So you don't have to approve or disapprove of what Craig did, or think him reprsentative of gay men or not (and, for the record, he isn't) to see something wrong with what the police did in his case. The issue for me is, as the title of my post indicates, civil liberties and bias against gays.

So you don't have to approve

So you don't have to approve or disapprove of what Craig did, or think him reprsentative of gay men or not (and, for the record, he isn't) to see something wrong with what the police did in his case. The issue for me is, as the title of my post indicates, civil liberties and bias against gays.

I think that everyone should be careful about deciding who is "representative" of a particular group of people. I have never heard anyone talk about what kind of behavior is "representative" of the straight community. I often see a similar type of discourse around "the black community" and other communities of color. Again, I have never heard anyone talk about the "white community" in the same way that people talk about African-Americans, Asians, or Latinos.

---
Check out my blog!

Republican hypocripsy

I wonder if there are more gay Republicans than Democrats in Congress. It's very sad, but I can understand how standing against gays in politics helps closeted gays live with sexual desires they think are immoral. So there is another reason to do everything we can to erase the stigma of being gay...it will reduce the number of Republicans.

This reminds me of a similar kind of hypocripsy. When Jesse Helms was running for reelection Senate in, 1990 I believe, he made a big deal about the Corcoran Gallery having a Mapplethorpe retrospective with federal dollars. But Helms took a loose leaf folder of Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photographs with him on the campaign trail. He would tell his audience, "Now you women, step back, beacuse I have some pictures here that will offend you. But I want the men in the audience to see the kind of trash we are supporting with your money." And then his aids would pass around the photographs.

This showed the truth of the old joke, Democrats look at porn in the privacy of their homes, while Republicans get together in groups to look at it.

This was one of the most heartbreaking elections of my life. Helms beat Harvey Gantt, the former Mayor of Charlotte and just about the classiest politician I have ever known and worked for, by a few percentage of the vote. That was the year Helms ran a famous TV add of a pair of white hand throwing away a rejection letter and blaming that letter on affirmative action. Helms was down in the polls (and if I remember correctly, far enough down to beat the likely pro-Gantt bias in the polls) a few days before the election.

And, while I'm free associating, I should point out that Gantt won election as Mayor in Charlotte despite the fact that whites were about 65% of the electorate. I wonder if that has ever happened in a northern city. He lost his second bid for reelection because he had taken advantage of teh very progressive annexation laws in North Carolina and annexed large tracts in Mecklenburg County. Gantt won by a nice amount in pre-annexation Charlotte, but was overwhelmingly defeated in the areas he had annexed.

Sort of in general response

One of the most influential books I've read (I guess in terms of cultural knowledge) was an oral history of the Stonewall era I read in 9th grade. I made a project out of it, and learned for the first time the limits of my parents' liberalism.

Anyway, one of the many things I took from that book--along with an abiding and still-unfulfilled desire to summer at Fire Island--was shock at the anti-gay-sex sting operations cops used to mount at bars. Those policing practices fall squarely in a messy area of entrapment and conspiracy law that has historically been, as the Slate conversation Marc referenced recognizes, often deployed against unpopular groups in society.

Sure, public places shouldn't become "dens of blowjobs," and if there is really such risk of this, police should feel free to park themselves in plain sight to discourage it.

But yeah, I am hugely uncomfortable with police resources being used to have some officer sit for X amount of time in a bathroom hoping to play along with someone's pretty subtle request for consensual, non-paid sex acts.

Although I can get angry, still I can't muster up much sympathy for politicians with anti-gay political positions reaping some of the fruits of the culture and laws they help sow.

nice try

what the hell does this thread have to do with philadelphia?

Didn't you say we have this problem in Philly?

When I talked with people from the Human Rights Campaign about LGBT issues last January, they told me that gays and lesbians sometimes get hassled by the police. So, when I saw that the common response to the Craig arrest on the left was to laugh at him, rather than question the laws adn procedures that led to his arrest, it occured to me that this might be a good way to focus on what's wrong with this kind of law enforcement.

And I thought you pointed out above that it goes on here, too. If so, it should stop both because it is inherently wrong and because, as Jennifer intimates, it really is a waste of resources.

If there really is a serious and ongoing problem in Philly, perhaps it could be fixed with a City Council hearing, although it would have to be carried out in a way that protects the identity of some possible witnesses. I'd like to see someone ask the police: Does the vice squad actually do anything useful in a city with a murder rate like ours? Isn't having such a squad an invitation to abuse the rights of some citizens? If there are real problems of the kind vice squad's address, can't they be handled by the police districts?

If there is not such a problem, there are certainly other LGBT issues on which to focus.

I'm not saying what the right course is, just asking for the opinion of other folks who would know better than me.

no

marc, sorry i was unclear. I understand how you tried to put a Philly focus on it, I was mostly joking though since it wasn't really going anywhere local.

LIberty City has not addressed this recently. Some years back (maybe 5 or more), Liberty City may have been involved in a protest of another sweeps-time bust-up though Chris Bartlett and some other Philly Faeries would know for sure. Since same-sex sex acts were only recently decriminalized in our own bedrooms, public sex hasn't really been on the front burner. There is certainly a history of entrapment by Philadelphia police and university police in bathrooms. There has also been a history of entrapment and violence against sex workers in the gayborhood (and I imagine sex workers who ply their trade for the benefit of straight men too).

I would say the relationship between the police and the LGBT community has been historically rocky, and some of the older, more established leaders in the gayborhood might paint a rosier picture, but i still get pretty nervous around cops when i am downtown.

however, i would say that the proliferation of the internet as place to find sex has diminished the historic role that public bathrooms and sex clubs and bathhouses play in the gay male public sex world to the point where i am not really sure that there is enough activity going on for the vice squad to be able to even find people to entrap.

there was a raid a year or two back on a straight sex club on South Street which is a questionable activity on the part of the vice squad. however, while i have no hard evidence at my fingertips, i am not sure that entrapment and persecution of gays for public sex is quite that big a deal. remember, craig was in an airport, a location in our society today that is always under more intense security and scrutiny than anywhere else. and an airport bathroom might be a busier place for public sex than department store or university bathrooms in cities as travellers can't use the internet to connect to anyone else very easily.

OK and thanks. It

sounds like this is one to keep an eye on not to start a movement on.

I do hope people think about what's wrong with the police activity that lead to Larry Craig's arrest.

And while I can't help thinking a bit about the kind of self-repression--or even self-torture-- that must lead an evidently gay man like Craig to take the political stance he does, we can go back to laughing at him.

It's their bed-they have to lie in it

I would say that I completely agree that persecuting this type of conduct is very disconcerting. Frankly, I think that all sex related "crimes" should be wiped off the books. But it is the fault of conservatives and republicans that we have such a sexually repressed culture where this type of persecuting of sexual "crimes" goes on. Sleazy? Yes. Criminal conduct? No. But guys like Larry Craig have to realize that when they create a sexually repressive culture, and get caught with their hands in the cookie jar (pun intended) and get burned by it, it is their own fault and the bed that they lie in (pun intended).

Something's off re: Craig story.

First, I hesitate to respond here because it's not really a Philly issue and also because the only time I have anonymous gay bathroom sex is with Ray Murphy, but I don't belong to other blogs so here's where it'll come out.

At first I was all too happy to watch this hypocrite (who I've heard was gay for years) get caught with his pants down. He clearly was no friend of the gay community (or the environment, labor, common sense, or other reality-based communities), so it was good to see him go down. But my feelings on this have evolved a little in the past few days that I've been following this story.

First off, I can't help but get increasingly pissed off at the Republican leadership who was very supportive of Sen. Vitter after he was caught sleeping with DC prostitutes. I'm pretty insulted that they're so outraged about this, when in reality, this was just Sen Craig making a pass at some cute undercover cop. I mean talk about blatant hypocrisy. Shouldn't Vitter have had worse treatment because he actually went through with it?

Second, and this pains me to type this, I'm starting to feel a little sorry for this guy. I mean who's fault is it that he's stayed in the closet his whole life, where he's relegated to this type of behavior? Yes, clearly there were out gay men of his generation that became gay civil rights heroes by coming out at a time when it meant drastic hardships (Frank Kameny was outed because of a public bathroom incident, but then went on to become a gay civil rights leader). I can't help but think that if we lived in a perfect world, Craig would never have been ashamed of his sexuality and he would have been a much happier person. My mother & father always tell me I'm too hard on closeted men, and I should cut them some slack because it's hard to come out and everyone's different (yes, my parents scold me on gay tolerance). Maybe they're right. Obviously Sen Craig could have grown some balls and come out, but I understand that's hard to do.

Finally, to what degree is the cop baiting men to start this action. If Craig tapped his foot, and the man in the stall next time him didn't do anything, then Craig wouldn't have continued his Morris-code of bathroom flirtations. Since the cop was flirting back, does that mean it's baiting? If that cop started flirting with me in the counter line at Quiznos and I flirted back, is that illegal? What about if he flirted with me in the bathroom at Quiznos, and I flirted back, does it make it criminal? Are we criminalizing flirting? I hope not, it's really my only game on a Friday night.

I don't know, I just have been uncomfortable with the media narrative on this, and I needed somewhere to type this out. Oh, and I was just joking about the only time I have anonymous gay bathroom sex is with Ray Murphy, it's just most of the time.

one more thing

Who else is going to have so much fun with this in stalls at public bathrooms. I might head to some this weekend just so when someone sits down next to me I start this elaborate tap dance with my feet, interjecting coughs and whistles for a full minute and a half, and concluding with "The yellow sparrow is off, off, off of her ice-tea addiction" or some other asinine sentence.

Maybe I'll meet a match another hottie like Sen. Craig!

charlie

have you considered speed dating at the william way?

haha, very funny.

haha, very funny.

Marc Stier and Larry Craig

Well it seems that Marc and his McCarthyite tactics have driven Larry Craig from office

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content