i agree with everything glenn says, but i think there's one justification the "morals" crowd has for focusing on the homosexual "sin" rather than the hetero sins.

straight people who cheat on their spouses or have abortions or what-have-you can always say they suffered a lapse. They can repent and promise not to do it again. thus, they get forgiveness.

gays, on the other hand, say it's their nature, so they can't repent -- they're permanent sinners.

see the difference? of course, craig is saying he isn't gay, and so by the above logic should be forgiven. but he won't be because the morals crowd would rather score political points.

I hope you're right. In fact, I often wonder if the entire Ron Paul campaign isn't some sort of elaborate, satirical performance art hoax.

But then I glance at the paper or turn on the TV and realize what used to be sick jokes are now the news.

And I don't mean to pick on The Canadian but vet your conspiracies a little better.

Kay Griggs when googled brings up the Right Reverend Pastor Rick Strawcutter. He's voting for Ron Paul!!!

http://www.rickross.com/reference/supremacists/supremacists6.html

Joseph Cannon does a good job of picking both Kay Griggs and Cathy O'Brien. Some conspiracy theories are better than others.

"Oh my god! They raped Kenny! Then they brainwashed him! Then they made him a bird colonel!"

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/03/oh-my-god-they-raped-kenny-then-they.html

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/06/missing-family-jewel.html

Now everyone frot!!!

Since no one wants to focus on important things, like an attack on Iran and the horrible consequences for the US that would result from that. Since everyone is into this non-story, it's a shame you are all missing the big picture.

Respectfully -- please don't worry about us.

If you read the police report, you will see that Craig did nothing illegal. He never asked for sex, which in itself is not illegal. He tapped his foot, and he ran his hand underneath the stall. Maybe his stall was out of toilet paper and was trying to get some from the stall next to him. Again nothing illegal. But because some undercover police officer hanging out in a men's bathroom was next door, the guy got arrested for "lewd conduct". I say the crime here was more in the officer's mind, then in anything Sen. Craig did.

You're obviously entitled to your viewpoint. I read the report, too, but unlike you, I have reached no conclusions from it. If the case had gone to trial, and I'd been on the jury, I would base my decision on the evidence and arguments presented.

But it didn't go to trial, because Sen. Craig plead guilty.

So the senator plead guilty to the charge in an attempt to avoid the embarassment of having to defend himself. Stupid but understandable considering how big a deal the media is making this non-story.

Again, I don't know why he plead guilty, but you don't either. You are speculating. That's your right, but I disagree with your characterization that Craig's decision to plea out is "understandable."

What this story highlights is that police are wasting resources to target gays. That's the big picture you all are missing.

The police are targeting men who hook up for sex in public bathrooms, not "gays" in general. Even if you think other adult men who use the restrooms shouldn't have a problem with this behavior, what about kids that have to use the facilities, for chrissakes? Also, I thought the "big picture" was the looming attack on Iran?

The sodomy laws maybe gone but police harassment of homosexuals continues. So instead of catching murderers and rapists, they hang out in men's bathrooms making sure no hanky panky goes on. Why do I not feel safer?

Whatever. I'm getting bored with this, and must stop now. Sheesh.

Performance art, yes; hoax, no. It always amazes me how people find it so easy to convince themselves that their own shtick is real, while everyone else's is somehow suspect. Is Ron Paul really any less improbable than -- say -- Jack Welch, or Richard Nixon?

Ah, well, it's made for ten thousand years of gossip, our current politico/sexual gotcha games, and who knows what all else. The conversion of a continuum of polymorphous perversity into rigid categories of behavior and deviations punishable by shame or even by death is one of the true marvels of human individuation, or would be, if it weren't so damned painful.

Just one quibble...

Your rule #4... I think he was actually a physician (which makes his practical application of anatomy that much more unbelievable); he just used the Bible as one of his medical texts.

Apparently this thought has been condensed a little too much and requires explanation. At least that's the charitable view.

One is chastised for hypocrisy only if one has standards to contravene. Democrats have fewer behavioral standards which happily(?) results in fewer moral conundrums. I'd venture to say that the only sexual or relational taboo Democrats have is pedophilia, and I'll bet if Hilary Clinton were interested in underage girls, that would be OK too. In other words, when anything goes regarding relationships, there is nothing that could happen to be considered hypocritical. "This kind of problem arises only if one has standards."

Interestingly, most of Democrat standards have to be intuited by what they blame Republicans for. One would think that laundering campaign cash is bad by what Dems said re: Tom Delay. But apparently when Democrats do it re: Tsu, not so much. Which is why, as always, IOKIYAD.

sound's to me like you speak from experience, Mr. Spewter.

Did you miss your weekely dungeon session, or what?

"The police are targeting men who hook up for sex in public bathrooms, not "gays" in general."

They may or may not be targeted by Police, but it is hard to argue that bias doesn't flow along lines of sexual orientation, just as it does with race and gender.

I grew up among values voters, and while I have retained those values, I am deeply skeptical of their pronouncements in politics. In the craig/vitter cases there is an obvious double standard. Values-voters have divorce rates similar to other demographics, so you don't find much huffing and puffing about that issue, but anyone who is gay gets shunted out. I find this deeply distressing. I don't think values-voters ought to make many public pronoucements about gays or gay marraige until their community starts keeping the marraige vows of thier own. values voters care about principles that are easy for them to keep, but avoid their own difficult issues.