Monday
Sep032007
A queer double standard
Monday, September 3, 2007 at 3:00AM
By Ellen Ratner
The 1945 novel written by George Orwell titled, "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story", provides a useful lens by which last week's resignation of Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig can be viewed. Both Orwell's novel, and Craig's "novella" illustrate the hypocrisy and absurdity of the self-anointed "regimes" that draw their power, not from earned legitimacy, but through harassment, fear and intimidation.
Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. He was guilty of that dangerous behavior heretofore referred to as "the wide stance." The scene of his crime was the men's room at the Minneapolis airport. The senator happened to practice the wide stance in front of a not so wide audience – the wrong audience, who happened to be an undercover cop. Aside from the fact that I find it a bit disturbing that our police officers who are supposed to be tracking down would be terrorists, in their favorite place to terrorize – an airport, would rather stake out the stall of a men's room. It begs the question of entrapment. The definition of entrapment from thefreedictionary.com is: (a) To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation, or (b) To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.
Craig may have had an entrapment defense had he not decided to be his own attorney and plead guilty to a misdemeanor – disorderly conduct. Plenty of senators and congressmen and even presidents have been charged with disorderly conduct, some before office, some during and some after having left office. Sometimes they don't have to confess their sins to the court, but to the court of public opinion like the good senator from Louisiana, Republican Sen. David Vitter. Earlier in the summer, Vitter asked for mercy for his sins, invoked the name of God in his apology for being on "the Madame's list" several times, and he was "good to go." As quoted in the Fox News website, "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there – with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way." Vitter was known to be a frequent patron of the world's oldest profession.
My question for the Republican Party who forced Craig to resign this week is, why Craig and not Vitter? My conservative counterpart, Jim Pinkerton, on Fox News's "Long and Short of It", gives the party's reasoning: It's because Vitter apologized, and because the Republican Party stands up for family values. OK Jim, I guess you want me to believe that there is a huge difference between the crime of soliciting a prostitute and the crime of disorderly conduct. As in there is a huge difference between selling marijuana vs. cocaine? Both offenses are punishable by imprisonment.
Or does the difference have to do with the sex of the partner in crime or sexual orientation of the partner(s) in the would-be crime. What if Vitter was on a male prostitute's list? Or what if Craig was in a unisex restroom and the person in the stall next to him was a woman and not an undercover male police officer?
I think anyone who answers the question honestly can say that the difference between Vitter's get-out-of-jail-free card and Craig's lock him up and throw away the key to the Senate men's room, has to do with the fact that the Republican Party is deeply homophobic. Again, from thefreedictionary.com: Homophobia: (a) Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. (b) Behavior based on such a feeling.
The Republican Party claims that Sen. Craig had to go because Republicans stand for family values. Why didn't Vitter have to go?
Perhaps Craig's expedient flush and Vitter's reprieve also had to do with the Republican head count in the Senate. The Republicans have had an issue with heterosexual sex in the past. Remember when our country was preoccupied for more than a year with the President Clinton impeachment? Republicans tried to impeach and remove President Clinton over a charge that stemmed from questioning his legal heterosexual conduct.
Perhaps the answer to why Craig and why Clinton, but not Vitter comes down to Orwell's satire on totalitarian regimes – all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. The Republicans are willing to flush one of their own if there is any hint of homosexual conduct and especially if that seat is a securely held Republican seat. They will, however tolerate a complete flush of family values if there is heterosexual misconduct and it's in a not-so-securely-held state. Louisiana is, after all a "purple state," not fully red or blue.
So when the Republicans play the family value card, they are really playing the political expediency card. Granted, I'm no Larry Craig fan, but I do believe that the cornerstone of a democracy is that all should be treated equally.
The 1945 novel written by George Orwell titled, "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story", provides a useful lens by which last week's resignation of Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig can be viewed. Both Orwell's novel, and Craig's "novella" illustrate the hypocrisy and absurdity of the self-anointed "regimes" that draw their power, not from earned legitimacy, but through harassment, fear and intimidation.
Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. He was guilty of that dangerous behavior heretofore referred to as "the wide stance." The scene of his crime was the men's room at the Minneapolis airport. The senator happened to practice the wide stance in front of a not so wide audience – the wrong audience, who happened to be an undercover cop. Aside from the fact that I find it a bit disturbing that our police officers who are supposed to be tracking down would be terrorists, in their favorite place to terrorize – an airport, would rather stake out the stall of a men's room. It begs the question of entrapment. The definition of entrapment from thefreedictionary.com is: (a) To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation, or (b) To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.
Craig may have had an entrapment defense had he not decided to be his own attorney and plead guilty to a misdemeanor – disorderly conduct. Plenty of senators and congressmen and even presidents have been charged with disorderly conduct, some before office, some during and some after having left office. Sometimes they don't have to confess their sins to the court, but to the court of public opinion like the good senator from Louisiana, Republican Sen. David Vitter. Earlier in the summer, Vitter asked for mercy for his sins, invoked the name of God in his apology for being on "the Madame's list" several times, and he was "good to go." As quoted in the Fox News website, "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there – with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way." Vitter was known to be a frequent patron of the world's oldest profession.
My question for the Republican Party who forced Craig to resign this week is, why Craig and not Vitter? My conservative counterpart, Jim Pinkerton, on Fox News's "Long and Short of It", gives the party's reasoning: It's because Vitter apologized, and because the Republican Party stands up for family values. OK Jim, I guess you want me to believe that there is a huge difference between the crime of soliciting a prostitute and the crime of disorderly conduct. As in there is a huge difference between selling marijuana vs. cocaine? Both offenses are punishable by imprisonment.
Or does the difference have to do with the sex of the partner in crime or sexual orientation of the partner(s) in the would-be crime. What if Vitter was on a male prostitute's list? Or what if Craig was in a unisex restroom and the person in the stall next to him was a woman and not an undercover male police officer?
I think anyone who answers the question honestly can say that the difference between Vitter's get-out-of-jail-free card and Craig's lock him up and throw away the key to the Senate men's room, has to do with the fact that the Republican Party is deeply homophobic. Again, from thefreedictionary.com: Homophobia: (a) Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. (b) Behavior based on such a feeling.
The Republican Party claims that Sen. Craig had to go because Republicans stand for family values. Why didn't Vitter have to go?
Perhaps Craig's expedient flush and Vitter's reprieve also had to do with the Republican head count in the Senate. The Republicans have had an issue with heterosexual sex in the past. Remember when our country was preoccupied for more than a year with the President Clinton impeachment? Republicans tried to impeach and remove President Clinton over a charge that stemmed from questioning his legal heterosexual conduct.
Perhaps the answer to why Craig and why Clinton, but not Vitter comes down to Orwell's satire on totalitarian regimes – all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. The Republicans are willing to flush one of their own if there is any hint of homosexual conduct and especially if that seat is a securely held Republican seat. They will, however tolerate a complete flush of family values if there is heterosexual misconduct and it's in a not-so-securely-held state. Louisiana is, after all a "purple state," not fully red or blue.
So when the Republicans play the family value card, they are really playing the political expediency card. Granted, I'm no Larry Craig fan, but I do believe that the cornerstone of a democracy is that all should be treated equally.
Reader Comments