Larry Craig, do you think anyone believes you?

After class tonight, I flipped on the TV while I ate a bowl of cereal and discovered Larry Craig, Republican Senator from Idaho who was arrested in a June 11 gay sex sting in St. Paul, proclaiming his innocence and heterosexuality before Matt Lauer and the world.

Here's a short clip.

The interesting thing about the whole scandal is that Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct back in August. And he admitted to keeping his arrest secret from his family for six weeks. (His wife, Suzanne, sits to his right and affirms her support of his innocence in the interview from their living room in Boise). However, now, two months after the guilty plea and amid cries for his resignation from Republicans in the Senate and in Idaho, Craig says he's innocent, he is a victim of entrapment, and, most definitely, he is not gay.

Now, I was not in the airport bathroom when the sex solicitation allegedly occurred, nor do I know exactly what the arresting officer deems as a sexual proposition when he affirmed the senator "signaled by hand and foot gestures that he wanted to have sex with him."

What I do know, though, is this:

The bathroom was a noted gay haunt (Craig frequented the St. Paul airport on a weekly basis, according to the interview)
The Senator plead guilty to disorderly conduct (a lesser charge than arrested for)
He did not want his wife and kids to know about his slip up

Given these simple facts, it seems pretty clear to me that the man, regardless of his sexual orientation, is not innocent in this crime. Craig claims in his interview his a fighter and he never walks away from a challenge. Well, Mr. Craig, it certainly seems you initially didn't try too hard to fight this battle. A guilty plea to a lesser, though related charge. An almost two-month cover up. Looks like somebody knows he was in the wrong and tried like hell to keep the scandal from going public.

But Craig failed, and now he must maintain his innocence, another politician adding to the ranks of politicos who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. (At least Bill Clinton went through unwarranted impeachment for his sexual slip up).


What bothers me most about the entire Craig ordeal is what it communicates about homosexuality. Now, I'm liberal. I'm open-minded. I can believe that a man who has an isolated sexual encounter with another man is not gay. God knows I've had my fair share of encounters with these types of men. However, Craig was caught soliciting sex in a public restroom with a reputation as a hot bed for gay sexual encounters. He says in his interview he flies through the St. Paul airport almost weekly, and his track record shows him to be a strong opponent to gay rights. Well, it seems to me, then, that he'd know what went on in the airport bathroom, and if he's so averse to homosexuality, he'd have avoided the john altogether, or at least been on the prosecuting end of the sex sting. Therefore, I have a feeling the guy had solicited gay sex in the bathroom many times before, June 11 being merely the first time he was caught. I can't prove my theory, but I'm willing to bet many Americans can see my point.

So, what does his fervent denial (and dare I say back-pedaling?) communicate about homosexuality? Well, my that is this: that a gay lifestyle (for lack of a better term) involves sneaking around and denying who you are. It's all about risky sex, and it's a private identity that should be shielded from the public. It short, homosexuality is something real and ugly, something that must be kept in bathroom stalls and out of American politics.

Looks like Craig's sex scandal does exactly what his legislation tried to do: further villianize homosexuality. Sure, it may cost him his career, or the Republican party some brownie points while the story's still in the headlines, but I think scandals like this only reinforce conservative ideas about the shamefulness of homosexuality. Let's hope airports don't beef up security against queer travelers as a result. Just what the country doesn't need is a "code pink" added to its broad rainbow of color-coded terrorist threats.