I still don't understand this case, at all. He was arrested for sticking his hand in the stall next to him? Now that's certainly a horrible, blatant violation of Man Law, but it seems like it should really minor violation of criminal law. He might should have had his fingers broken, but criminal charges? Not so much.
What do you have to do to get arrested when you are trying to pick up a undercover female cop posing as a hooker? These hand and feet signals are apparently pickup signals.
I don't have a clue. I don't like those kind of traps anyway. I really have a problem with government officials trying to trick citizens into breaking the law.
I am curious how did the officer in this case tried to trick this perons? He was just sitting there doing nothing, the senator is the one who initiated everything.
<object width="425" height="353"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wlsq__Hkk_M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wlsq__Hkk_M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed></object> a reenactment.
You know, I'm sorry, but I have to offer some basic geometric thoughts on the "wide stance" defense. Having just visited a stall (I know, TMI, sorry), I really thought about this. To truly have a wide stance, to the point that one foot could even get close to the divider, your thighs have to form at *least* a 90-degree angle. Now picture trying to accomplish this with pants on. Can't do it. Your pants are not just around your ankles -- they have to be removed or be around just one ankle. If however, you just wanted (for whatever reason, be it nerves or general creepiness) to move your foot over there, you can kind of put your knees together, keep your pants on, and scoot your feet out. That's functionally a very narrow stance for the business at hand.
Nobody is calling him out or denigrating him simply for being gay. He is being called to task as a result of his hypocracy in his voting record when viewed in the context of someone who, if not gay, certainly seems to be in the middle of the spectrum.
When did this representative author or vote for legislation related to "hurling obscenities" at people? Do you really think that a guy who needs anger management classes is really analagous to a closeted Republican Senator who, over the course of the last decade, has supportd every anti-gay initiative that the GOP (Gay Old Party, I guess) has put forth? Did you put the blinders on or is your tunnel vision the result of an illness?
The idea that if a gay person is against gay marriage they are hypocrites is ludicrous. Based on my own informal research (Conversations with my gay sister's friends, most of whom are not only gay and active in the gay community, but also flaming, rainbow flag waving liberals), many gay people are against gay marriage for various reasons. I'd estimate that 30-40% of her gay friends (mostly 20- and 30-somethings from all walks of life) do not support gay marriage. To say that a gay Republican, especially one who is in the closet, has to support gay marriage or he's a hypocrite is just ridiculous.
wes, how about a Gay Senator who votes to make sure that violent crimes targeting gay people cannot fall under a "hate crimes" designation? As for your 30-40%, that could be true for the people you know, but for all the gay people I know, am friends with and work with in San Francisco, there's 0-1% against gay marriage. Just for what it's worth. I agree with you in rhetorical principle at least. As for my earlier, devastating geometry argument, I assume it's a closed case then: the wide stance excuse is dismissed.
They all are from Southeast Texas (most from Houston), so that could effect the sample. Craig was from Idaho, wouldn't that effect his views? I personally think the hate crimes designation is a crock anyway. I believe equality in justice should be our target.
i agree, and some interesting thoughts here: http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010531 [rquoter]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.[/rquoter] to be honest with you, i'm not sure what i believe on the issue of gay marriage. on the one hand, i don't believe it's an issue of civil rights, since i don't think there is, or should be, a "right" to marry (and i've been married twice), since i don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all, for gay US americans, or straight. on the other hand, it does not seem reasonable that i can marry, but my friend richard can't, at least not in the state where he lives. one the other hand, richard can marry, he just can't marry the man he's living with...perhaps fred and rudy are correct, it's an issue of federalism.
agree on the equality of justice. And really good point about regions. Also, agree with basso's reference on "outing," something I've always seen as cruel and against stated humanist principles. I tend to side against radicals of all stripes.
[Sgt. Dave] Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see “an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall." _____ Btw ~ sweet gig.
You know what the funniest part of this whole thing is, dontcha? The 2008 Republican National Convention is beiing held in....wait for it..... Minneapolis-St. Paul Minnesota I guess we know why the Gay Old Party chose that city, eh? So they can set up the "Press Room" in the bathroom of the airport!
There are gay people who don't support gay marriage.... the point being: not every piece of legislation which involves being gay, if not supported, does not constitute being anti-gay and thus not necessarily being hypocritical. But name-calling is fun, isn't it?
Saw/heard a report that the incidence of "shameful controversy" is running 2-to-1 in disfavor of the Republicans. So it's two handfuls of Republicans for every single handful of Democrats. Big whoop. Why do you call the guy nutty? Maybe he had his first homosexual encounter last year-- 5 or 10 years after he failed to support some legislative agenda that you construct as pro-gay. We just don't know. Being conflicted about something does not make you nutty. It is limiting. I think you should be more generous with your pronouncement of someone in such a state.... but that wouldn't serve to illlustrate your agenda, would it? And I will hasten to add that not every bill involving any aspect of being gay is universally hailed as pro-gay, i.e. to NOT support it is not necessarily anti-gay.
the liberal media is up to its old tricks again; just look at this................... http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=arN294MgBIFo&refer=us ``I would strongly urge him to step down,'' said Gary Bauer, the president of American Values, an Arlington, Virginia- based family advocacy group. ``I just cannot imagine under what circumstances he can clear this up.'' ``His re-election is clearly out of the question, the only question is whether he can serve out the remainder of his term,'' Ayres said. ``It's never good to become a laughingstock if you're trying to hang on to political office.'' Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called the incident ``disgusting.'' Arizona Senator John McCain, who is also seeking the party's presidential nomination, said Craig's guilty plea should end his congressional career. ``When you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn't serve,'' McCain said yesterday on CNN. Republican Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan and Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota also called for Craig's resignation. `Inappropriate' Conduct ``I believe his conduct throughout this matter has been inappropriate for a U.S. senator,'' Hoekstra said in a written statement. Coleman said Craig ``pled guilty to a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator. He should resign.''
