Another Day, Another Gay Republican Homophobe is Outed

Yet another example of the most rabid anti-gay members of society being the most prone to closet-hiding.

 

Does anyone know what the general % of homesexuals that vote Republican vs. democrat? Is it different for homesexual men vs. women? There just seems to be so many "log cabin" (or do they call them Lincoln) republicans that are male, but you rarely hear of lesbian republicans. (unless you count Condileeza)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 28 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]503338[/snapback]</div>

There's your next poll topic

gay women republican

gay male republican

str8 male republican

st8 women republican

gay women democrat

gay male democrat

str8 male democrat

st8 women democrat

then i guess need to do the same for green party , nonpartisan..etc...should be interesting poll if you decide to post one.

 

I don't think a poll here would have enough to have any statistical relevance. But I'm sure those statistics exist somewhere, I just don't know where. Pure curiosity....

I had a good friend in college who was gay, and of course was an affluent Christian Republican.
I always wondered why.

 

Wow... reading the Forbes article about it, i was willing to give the Senator the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/28/ap4059405.html

There all it said was he was tapping his foot, which apparently is a common sign that you want to participate (to which i had no idea).

But reading that Fox article, things sound way, way worse.

 

Much as I love the schadenfreude of any hypocrite's discomfiture, this episode puts chills down my spine. Here's a man whose life is about to be completely devastated because he did three acts:

Peered into a closed, occupied toilet stall.

Made motions with his foot that carried his foot into the occupied adjacent stall.

Made motions with his hand visible to the occupant of the adjacent stall.

No words were spoken, no gentalia were exposed, no overt threatening gestures were made. What law, exactly, was broken? Is it against the law to make silent gestures now?

Too bad the senator's guilty reaction is more damning than the episode itself, because I don't see anything even remotely illegal about those three acts. Creepy, yes. Illegal, no. Moreover, there're grounds for entrapment, because any reasonable person, seeing someone peering into his stall, would simply say "it's occupied", and not remain silent.

I'm always happy to see a hypocrite get hoist on his own petard, but not to the extent that it devastates his entire life, and especially not at the cost of having our every harmless gesture observed and possibly misconstrued by lurking constabularly. That's just scary.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 28 2007, 03:21 PM) [snapback]503386[/snapback]</div>

I see it a bit differently.

1) He was hanging around and acting "creepy" long enough for someone to complain to the airport police.
2) He came back to the same stall to look in again. Airports have lots of stalls, he could have selected another.
3) He didn't just tap his foot or move his foot into the other stall. He touched his foot to another man's foot. This is not appropriate behavior in a public restroom.
4) After touching the officer with his foot he starts reaching under the divider with his hand.
5) No words must be spoken to proposition someone for sex. If these are the signals used, and he used them then he propositioned the officer for sex in a public restroom. That would be considered lewd conduct in most areas.
6) If he wasn't guilty and was just innocently tapping his foot he could have made his case instead of pleading guilty to the charge.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 28 2007, 01:46 PM) [snapback]503401[/snapback]</div>

A guy in a public park sees a girl sitting alone on a bench, goes over and introduces himself, perhaps offers to buy her a beer, and says "How about we go to my place?" That's a pretty common, if crass, overture for what most guys hope will lead to sex, if not immediately, at some point. In the heterosexual world these overtures, even creepy crass ones, are legal unless they are threatening, coercive or truly lewd (as in publicly exposing genitalia), or continued against the girl's expressed wish that the guy leave her alone.

So why is it illegal for a gay person to make a sexual overture, even if it's crass, or creepy to a heterosexual? Unless the law forbids homosexual behavior itself (which in many if not most states is no longer the case), what law is being broken?

Soliciting sex for money is still illegal, hetero or homo, but there was no hint of that in this case, solely an assumption on the officer's part that he was being propositioned for sex - a leap, I think, when what could have been intended was only a confirmation that the officer was a fellow gay, not necessarily an immediate sexual liaison.

Or can a girl have a guy arrested today simply if he asks, openly and in a public setting, "Your place or mine?" I don't see the difference. Explain.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 28 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]503427[/snapback]</div>

You make a good point.

My point was to me this was not a case of a guy's innocent gestures being mistaken as a proposition for sex. To me it is very obvious that the Senator was looking for sex.

Now to your point should propositioning for sex in public be legal as long as the sex takes place in private? Yes, I would say it should. Now should some guy in the stall next to me start playing footsie and reach under the divider, NO! CREEPY

 

The first article I read about the incident said that the officer had entered the restroom based on a complaint. My assumption was that the Senator was already in the restroom before the officer arrived.

The article I read in the New York Times indicated that the officer was in the restroom as part of a 'sting operation', which doesn't contradict the statement that he was there because of a 'complaint'.

Other articles I've since read seem to indicate that the officer was already in the restroom before the senator arrived, and that the allegations that the senator was soliciting sex were all based on the officer's statement that the actions by the senator were 'known' signals soliciting sex. I'm not a gay male, but I certainly haven't heard about such signals.

I can believe that the senator decided to plead guilty to the 'lewd conduct' charge as the simplest way of dealing with the situation - but I can't believe he would have been convicted if he'd gone to trial!

 

For the ladies out there, guys generally keep to themselves in the stall. Keep in mind you don't pee in a stall. Generally your feet are held together by your pants and in order for your feet to reach the stall next to yours you would need to remain clothed or lose the pants completely. A "wide stance" would put your knees further apart, but not your feet.

And, not that most of us are homophobes, but most guys go to great lengths to avoid doing ANYTHING in the men's room that might lead the other guy to think that they are being propositioned.

This guy is so totally busted. Come out of the closet already, get a boyfriend, and have all the gay sex you want in the comfort of your own home, and leave me out of it. Please.

Oh, and keep your self-hate out of our legislation.

Nate

 

I'm still waiting for the day that Fred Phelps gets busted. You KNOW it's not a matter of "if" but rather "when".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 28 2007, 03:21 PM) [snapback]503386[/snapback]</div>

This reminds me of a notorious bathroom in our university that was a famous pick up spot for gay males. My buddy unfortunately did not know this. He was taking a dump and reading the wall literature. Among the interesting array of poems and knick knacks, there was a phrase stating to tap your foot if you want to hook up. Immediately after he read that, the person in the stall next to him starts to tap his foot. Thinking that it was just a coincident my friend paid no mind. Suddenly the guy in the next stall sticks his head underneath my friend's stall and says "hi"! My friend freaks , pulls up his pants and bolts. Ahh, the college life.

 

I just came back from the gym, while on a treadmill, I saw old film on the news (cnn?) of that guy being accused of messing / harrassing with young pages on capitol hill. He was never legally charged with anything. Sounds kind of creepy to me. There are at least twenty monitors in my gym and I was not wearing headphones, but the captions were on and I read this.

Since he's from Idaho, he should just come out and say, "I da ho"

He probably was frog marched / perp walked with a load of "Spoodge Blob Queer Pants"....yuk

 

Without knowing the full context of the situation or what constitutes "signals" in the gay community of that geographic region I can only say what he did was not illegal but was odd for sure.

Like burritos stated, we also have a particular bathroom stall on my college campus that is a "hook up" spot for gay males. It is equipped with a hole between two stalls just large enough for, err, well you can use your imagination. I am friends with a few gay men at my college and we had a conversation about "The Stall" when it appeared in our school paper. He said that very little is actually said when you enter the bathroom. You and the other guy know each others intentions and nonverbal communication is all that is needed. Wonder if there is a similar hole between the girls and guys restrooms? :lol:

Mark, good post as usual man. I like how you try to avoid bandwagon hopping and look at something rationally.

 

Gotta tell you all I know an Idaho gay pride blogger (H Lukas Green) who sat on this story for a goodly while, even though the hypocrisy and anti-gay voting record really got up his nose. Lukas Green, PrideDepot

The best coverage is from my neighbor who's been digging at this story for 8 months, but also sat on it -- showing great restraint imho. Dan Popkey, Idaho Statesman 8/28

This afternoon the fool issued a statement trying to blame it all on the liberal media at our daily paper persecuting him and causing him stress which led to the "bad decision" of not seeking counsel and pleading guilty. Puleeze. Larry Craig's webpage

Most of the folks here in spudland I've talked with don't care if he sleeps with sheep - but they do care very much if he's a liar and a hypocrite. Local pundits are saying Craig is so gone and that former Idaho Governor and current Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne will run for Craig's seat.

EDIT: Somehow the links didn't get included last night which made this an especially lame post. With luck I got them in this time. - Red

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 28 2007, 07:27 PM) [snapback]503559[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, F8L, and likewise for your posts. Unfortunately I think much of the time we wind up being each other's choir, and little else. In the online edition of the San Francisco Chronicle there were well over 400 posted comments to the three articles (THREE separate articles!!!) on this incident; all but 3 rang the same dull "hang the hypocrite" tune in an infinite cacaphony of off-key, rancorous clamor (frankly, I would have expected much better from the larger gay community but I guess a mob is a mob even when an issue hits close to home). The infinitesimal 3 raised the same issue I raised - and were roundly ignored.

I had some free time this evening and in a fit of curiosity, went to the Minnesota statutes and looked things up. I just have a hard time believing what he did in that bathroom was even remotely criminal. Creepy, but even then only to a heterosexual. A search of the statutes that included any occurrence of "lewd" "sex" or "sexual" turned up 368 distinct statutes, including 5 that defined and proscribed penalties for 5 degrees of "sex crime". Our neurotic obsession with sex is truly and deeply disturbing. Murder only rates 3 degrees, sex is so heinous it needs 5 degrees.

But most fascinating is that while the issue here is sex, and nothing but sex, the two violations the senator was actually charged with were NONE of the 368 statutes that had any reference to sex or lewdness! Instead he was charged with 609.72, disturbing the peace, and 609.746, interference with privacy. Under the circumstances, both are a loooooonnng reach in any legal sense. Here are the relevant passages, edited to what's strictly relevant (with links to the full statutes):

Statute 609.72

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1. Crime.
Whoever does … in public … having reasonable grounds to know that it [could] alarm, anger or disturb others …
(3) Engage in offensive ... conduct ... tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.


Statute 609.746

609.746 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY.
Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion.
© A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the … aperture of a … place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and … is likely to expose their intimate parts … and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.


I think a strong exonerating factor here is the undercover cop's "leading" the senator on, effectively making moot the above provisions of reasonable expectations. The senator's first unambiguous "overture" was peering into the stall. Instead of being instantly rebuffed by a call of "It's occupied" the cop remained silent. The senator made his next move, tapping his foot, which was met by an answering tap of the cop's foot. Then the senator went further and played footsie, an act that would definintely arouse alarm, but only if it had not been preceded by the earlier overtures and signaled assents of a cop egging on his "perp".

Again, note that SEX is wholly absent from the charge, even though every molecule of the flapdoodle is over the "impropriety" or "immorality" of "gay" sex.


If all this makes me a "senator lover" so be it. I've been called worse.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA