I frankly don't care whether or not Senator Larry Craig is gay or bisexual.

I don't even care if he attempted to solicit sex in a bathroom.

We determined in the 1980s and 1990s that sexual orientation and sexual misconduct are irrelevant to fitness for office -- and any Democrat who didn't support the removal of Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Gerry Studds from office has no basis for raising a fuss over Craig.

What I do find disturbing is the hypocrisy charge -- based upon the presumption of his sexuality and his positions on gay marriage and hate crimes.

I've been trying to figure out how to explain my position, but ran across something that reflected my thoughts in a manner better than I could express them.

The liberal view of homosexuality is based on two claims: an empirical one and a moral one. The empirical claim is that sexual orientation is inborn, a trait over which one has no control. The moral claim is that homosexuality is no better or worse than heterosexuality; that a gay relationship, like a traditional marriage, can be an expression of true love and a source of deep fulfillment. Out of these claims flows the conclusion that opposition to gay rights is akin to racism: an unwarranted prejudice against people for a trait over which they have no control.

For the sake of argument, suppose this liberal view is true. What does it imply about the closeted homosexual who takes antigay positions? To our mind, the implication is that he is a deeply tragic figure, an abject victim of society's prejudices, which he has internalized and turned against himself. "Outing" him seems an act of gratuitous cruelty, not to mention hypocrisy if one also claims to believe in the right to privacy.

According to the Statesman, the blogger who "outed" Craig did so in order to "nail a hypocritical Republican foe of gay rights." But there is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. To the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has furtive encounters in men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy.

Defenders of "outing" politicians argue that the cruelty is not gratuitous--that politicians are in a position of power, which they are using to harm gay citizens, and therefore their private lives are fair game. But if the politician in question is a mere legislator, his power consists only of the ability to cast one vote among hundreds. The actual amount of harm that he is able to inflict is minimal.

Anyway, most lawmakers who oppose gay-rights measures are not homosexual. To single out those who are for special vituperation is itself a form of antigay prejudice. Liberals pride themselves on their compassion, but often are unwilling to extend it to those with whose politics they disagree.

Of course, liberals don't really believe that those who disagree with them are worthy of respect or rights. From Stalin's USSR to the Clinton White House to the local Democrat official who called for the murder of a prominent Republican for supporting the Iraq War, those who oppose the position of the liberal is seen as an enemy to be destroyed, not a fellow human being with a different point of view.

Some interesting takes on the Craig issue at Captain's Quarters, Slate, Lawyers Guns & Money, Talking Points Memo, Crossed Pond

Posted by: Greg at 04:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.