My ex-husband is gay. He's also abusive.

[Avalux]

I don't hate him for being gay - I have no problem with gay men (or women). I hate him for beating the crap out of me, abusing our daughter and being a real asshole.

See where I'm going with this?

Whether or not Larry Craig is gay is irrelevant. He broke a law by coming on to a stranger in a public restroom. What if he had snuck into a women's restroom and done the same thing? Really no difference; a violation of privacy.

[KingFlorez]

1. I agree

[BlueJazz]

2. I don't like your husband..in fact, Skittles and I are going to .....

...Kick His Ass!.

I am sorry that you had to endure such bullshit and abuse fron one of my fellow Males.

[Avalux]

5. lol - thanks! It was a long time ago and karma is a great thing.

:hug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. So now you're saying homosexuals are abusive?

:P

[Avalux]

6. Now now....

:spank:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Hey, it's been going around all day.

Apparently the admins think homosexuals are Grady, that ghost from The Shining.

[dipsydoodle]

10. There's a full stop between the two statements

Crows are black. My pen is black. It don't follow that crows are pens.:P

[movonne]

18. I didn't get that from what she said...I think she said she did not

like him because he was abusive, not gay...

[William769]

4. Well I myself as a Gay man

Going by his voting record, I'd say

Hypocrisy!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

15. And that is...

His greatest offense: Judgemental hypocrisy aimed at the honest and forthright GLBTI people in our society.

I have known closeted people in my life and I have felt sorry for them, but I understood why they were closeted, too. But they did not work to ruin the lives of others like them. Craig, I have not one scintilla of sympathy for. May he roast in the fire of his own making.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. There are jerks in every "group".

The worrisome thing in society is when a "group" is universally defiled.

And persecuted.

P.S. Speaking of which, a lot of us women have endured exactly that of which you speak. Could it be because we are actually accused in the Bible of being responsible for all of mankind being kicked out of the garden of eden? :shrug:

[Redstone]

8. Excellent. Recommended.

Redstone

[softwarevotingtrail]

9. Sorry, I think this is a clear case of entrapment

As much as I love to see a right-wing hypocrite like Larry Craig go down in humiliation, I think that what the Minneapolis police considered an arrestable offense is completely unjustifiable. He bumped shoes with a guy and ran his hand along the bottom of a bathroom stall. This is enough to warrant a criminal arrest? What year is it? I wouldn't want my tax money to go toward this sort of investigation. If they catch a couple of guys (or a woman and a man, or two women) doing it in a public stall, then fine, arrest them. Otherwise, why not focus police efforts on trivial stuff like Minneapolis's rising violent crime rate.

[Avalux]

11. Really? Interesting.

Have you read the entire report? And why would anyone plead guilty "hoping it would just go away"? :eyes:

[JuniperLea]

14. Peeping into another person's restroom stall...

by God had better be against the law! I don't think you got the whole story.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

28. LOL!

Agree and :rofl: MKJ

[MelissaB]

20. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1677954

Please forgive the spelling error in the linked thread. :)

[rocktivity]

23. It's not entrapment because Craig made the first move

Both in playing footsie and in staring at the undercover cop through the track of his bathroom stall door for a full two minutes. That's considered lewd behavior because it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy when it's reasonable that your pants will be down. And that's what he was charged with, not looking for sex.

:headbang:
rocknation

[softwarevotingtrail]

42. Playing footsie is illegal. Great.

And we're supposed to celebrate this?

[mondo joe]

24. No entrapment at all. The officer didn't do anything to MAKE Craig do a damn thing.

And yes, peering into ocupied stalls and reaching in is enough for an arrest.

[NashVegas]

32. Can We Do An Analogy?

Say you're going to make a drug buy. We are in a bar that's well-known for drug deals, and I'm standing in what we will call the 'drug' corner' for lack of anything better.

You loiter a bit, and give me the eyeball. You sit next to me and play with your braided wristband. I mimic the gesture. You point to the door. I arrest you for selling drugs.

What's your defense?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Horrible Analogy.

There are obvious reasons why the two scenarios are completely incomparable and I'm confident the overwhelming majority here can figure out why for themselves.

As far as the "what's your defense?" question; well, one thing I do know is that it better not be entrapment, lest you get laughed out of court.

[mondo joe]

45. The analogy doesn't hold. Craig was charged with Disorderly Conduct.

So should anyone who invades the already limited privacy of a bathroom stall.

[mzmolly]

29. There are restrooms known for "cruising" and signals used to alert

other cruisers of potential "cruiseage." ;) It's illegal to cruise for sex in public places, to peep on others using the restroom and to solicit prostitutes. All are against the law.

Here's another GOP-er who apparently left his "family values" at the door to his home.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1365005.html

[NashVegas]

31. I Agree With You

But once again, it IS a delicious sex scandal and I'm happy to make hay out of it.

[Blue-Jay]

33. Sorry, but you don't understand....well, ANYTHING.

He was charged with "peeping", or if you prefer, an invasion of privacy. Looking through the cracks of a public shitter for two minutes is Not OK. You dig?

He copped a plea of disorderly conduct and paid a fine, hoping that nobody would find out about his impropriety/proclivities, by his own admission. (as an aside: What kind of U.S. Senator is stupid enough to think that he could get away with nobody finding out about that?)

He was NOT charged with innocent flirting.
He was NOT charged with "being gay".


Let me repeat that, so that it sinks in: He was NOT charged with "being gay".

"Gay" has nothing to do with Larry Craig's legal issues. <--- Read that sentence one more time before replying.

[nashville_brook]

38. spot on

"He was NOT charged with "being gay"."

[softwarevotingtrail]

40. I've stood in front of a bathroom stall myself for 2 minutes

Who hasn't stood in front of a bathroom stall for two minutes waiting for one to become available? Did the cop ask Craig to stop staring at him? No, he did not. I'm not talking about gay issues. I'm talking about civil liberty issues. Gay rights organizations were accusing the Minneapolis police of entrapmentat the same time that Craig was arrested. They said that undercover police were actually putting their feet over into the ajoining stall in hopes of baiting gay cruisers.

Again, I love seeing a sick hypocrite like Craig go down in flames. I just don't believe what the cops were doing was fair.

[mondo joe]

43. Did you spend the 2 minutes looking into the occcupied stall?

Did you then slide your foot in, and reach in with your hand?

Bullshit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. It Would Help To Have An Understanding Of What Entrapment Even Is Prior To Declaring Something Like

that so steadfastly.

Just sayin...

[MyNameGoesHere]

52. So why did he plead guilty?

And then not tell anyone about it? Huh? Huh? yeah thought so.

[JuniperLea]

12. Perhaps Craig and your Ex...

Would be much happier people if they would just find peace with who they are?

You are spot on with the women's vs. men's room deal.

[FloridaJudy]

16. Absolutely.

Gender and sexual orientation are irrelevant. Crudely coming on to strangers in public places is creepy, period.

[dharmamarx]

22. There's nothing wrong w/ "coming on" to somebody! And you can't do that in private!

Craig was discretely signalling, and the cop signalled back to him. If the guy in the stall next to mine signalled to me like that, I wouldn't even notice and nothing would happen. And in the worst case someone hits on you and you're not interested. So what? I'm happy that Craig has done some damage to the Republican party, but there's nothing in this story to be morally outraged about if you're on the Left.

[softwarevotingtrail]

41. Being "creepy" is irrelevant to being "illegal"

Puleez.

[FloridaJudy]

49. Never said it should be illegal

Non-coercive sex between adults should be legal, period. While I also believe it should be private, I also think what that cop was doing was creepy, lurking in toilets waiting for someone to make a fumbling pass. He should have let it go with a gentle warning "Go home, old man. No one wants what you're offering here". Nothing Craig did was that offensive - he wasn't exposing himself or going after a minor. A warning would have scared him sufficiently that he probably wouldn't have tried it again.

I just think he's a sad old man, albeit a creepy one. Looking for a partner in a public restroom strikes me as an act of desperation. He needs help, not humiliation.

[Zookeeper]

50. The problem is that it is a PUBLIC restroom....

used by children as well as adults. When I send my 12 year old son into the main restroom at the Mpls. airport, I don't want him to be either propositioned or subjected to people having sex in the stall next to him.

Since that (main, very public) restroom even appeared on a list of "cruise" spots on the internet, it was a problem that had to be addressed.

I think Craig was selfish and thoughtless, in addition to being a hypocrite.

[EFerrari]

17. I tried to say this yesterday. It's not about sexual orientation

but about anti social behavior. :shrug:

[Left Is Write]

30. Craig himself is the one making it about sexual orientation.

Based on clips of his press conference in Boise yesterday, I concluded that he's pushing the whole "they shouldn't have arrested me, because I'm not gay!" angle, as if being gay is a crime and that's why he was arrested.

His supporters will certainly make it a gay/not gay issue, press the "witch hunt" angle, and position Senator Craig as a poor, put-upon innocent man being "accused" of the heinous crime of homosexuality.

[rocktivity]

19. Maybe your husband's anger was rooted in the role he was playing

Has he since come out, and has he improved as a person as a result?

:headbang:
rocknation

[Avalux]

25. Unfortunately no.

I wish he had, but he's still living a double life and is an asshole.

[mondo joe]

46. That's pretty insulting to gays and lesbians. We all grew up in a homophobic

environment, but we're all still responsible for our own behavior.

[rocktivity]

47. Of course. But surely it's easier to "behave" properly

if you're not under the pressure of living a lie.

:headbang:
ropcknation

[mondo joe]

48. Yeah, but it's his choice to live a lie, and his choice to live with it well or very very

poorly as he did.

I don't mean to be too sensitive about this. :-)

[Deja Q]

21. Must you be so rational?

:thumbsup:

[Avalux]

26. Yes! Someone has to be.

;-)

[noiretextatique]

27. since he says he's not gay anyway

it really isn't about him being gay.
and...he's not the only straight Republican male who solicits
blowjobs in public bathrooms.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. You're Absolutely Right, Of Course.

I haven't paid much attention to the Craig threads. But am I to assume that some are arguing that if you are against what he did then you're a homophobe or something?

[Matariki]

36. Is it really against the law to 'come on' to someone in a restroom?

that's the part I don't understand.

was there money offered? lewd behavior? those might make some sense. but simply a 'come on'? why should that be illegal?

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. You show me...

...exactly where the law states you are not allowed to come onto anyone in a public place, bathroom or otherwise.

[William769]

44. Peeeping into a bathroom stall is a "peeping tom"

That is against the law.

[Zookeeper]

51. Someone posted the actual MN statute on another thread....

and it involved a reasonable expectation of privacy, that the Senator clearly violated.