If you’ve been to any conservative blogs today, you know that the story of the day is the controversy over Sen. Larry Craig’s (R-Idaho) sexual orientation. I just don’t know what to make of this.
Mike Rogers, who calls himself “the nation’s leading gay activist blogger” has just finished a nationally-broadcast interview on the Ed Schultz Radio Show in which he alleges that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig has engaged in same-sex sexual activity.
Senator Craig’s office flatly rejected the claims. “The Senator says this story is absolutely ridiculous — almost laughable,” said press secretary Sid Smith. “It has no basis in fact.”
Rogers said he has talked to three men unknown to each other who all reported in detail their sexual encounters with Craig over the last four years. The men were of legal age, Rogers said…. Rogers says that digging into the private lives of politicians who support anti-gay legislation is legitimate. Because Craig supported and voted for the Defense of Marriage act, it is politically relevant to reveal these claims, Rogers said.
I don’t know, and don’t much care, if Rogers’ “scoop” is true. I do, however, think the issue is worth exploring a bit, because these incidents are becoming more common and will likely continue to be prevalent in the near future.
As Glenn noted, the right is apoplectic about this, at least online. Some are arguing that a political figure’s sex life shouldn’t be dragged into the public arena (which is, of course, ironic), while others believe it’s wrong to use sexual orientation as a political weapon (which is obviously only to be used when there’s a vote on a constitutional amendment, and even then, only by the right).
I have to say, I have mixed feelings about this one. Maybe it’s time for a Wednesday Afternoon Discussion Group.
On the one hand, I strongly believe a person’s sexual habits, as long as it relates to consenting adults, are an entirely private matter. Craig — whom I should note is married with children and grandchildren — may or may not have had gay encounters; that’s his business. If he they occurred and he chose to keep them secret, it’s a private matter.
On the other hand, Shakespeare’s Sister raises a compelling point.
I would absolutely not support the public outing of a private citizen whose sexuality had no bearing on his/her ability to do his/her job, and whose job had no association with perpetuating public discrimination against the LGBT community. That covers just about every private citizen in the country. Public officials, however, are actively involved in making decisions that affect the LGBT community, and if there’s a public official who consistently votes to limit their rights, but is only afforded his/her position to do so by virtue of the protection of a closet, that’s a real problem.
Craig has been virulently anti-gay in his voting record, which would certainly make him a hypocrite, if this unsubstantiated rumor is true. In this sense, Craig’s past would be relevant much the same way Newt Gingrich’s embarrassing past (affair, divorce, affair, divorce) is relevant — he keeps lecturing the rest of us on standards he doesn’t apply to himself.
Maybe.
My inclination, at the end of the day, is that forced outings are wrong and an invasion of privacy, no matter who is being targeted. I open the floor, however, to competing ideas.