August 29, 2007

Gay Sex in the Bathroom

By now you had to have heard about Senator Craig's alleged attempt to solicit sex from a police officer in an airport restroom.

If his voting record is any indication, Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) is a contemptible person.

Abortions? Against them.
Farm Subsidies? Yes, please.
Spending lots of money? Oh hells yeah.
NEA funding? Isn't that the same as spending money?
Freedom of speech? No way!
Freedom of person and property? Can't have that!
Gay marriage? They'll just marry ducks! No! No! No!

Anyway, I didn't start this post to rant about one legislator's despicable, freedom-hating tendencies. I want to talk about "allegedly."

We're assuming that the officer's reporting of the events is entirely factual.

What conclusion should we draw?

This is one of those cases where I think many people could be convinced (and that seems to be what Senator Craig is counting on) that although his behavior in the restroom was strange (A wide stance in the toilet? What the hell? Whatever, dude.) it doesn't necessarily mean that he was soliciting sex because he never actually said, "Hey, dude. Let's have sex in this here airport restroom."

There's a saying. "If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's a duck."

Basically, Senator Craig's behavior was consistent with that of a person soliciting sex in the restroom. There was absolutely no question in the mind of the police office who a) is kinda cute and b) has been solicited for sex many times, that Senator Craig was coming to him for sex.

"Nice work if you can get it. If you can get it, won't you tell me how?"

Senator Craig's current position seems to be that the police officer is a big, fat liar. Nice move.

My conflict here is the burden of proof for criminal cases. This pushes our discussion into the rather specific realm of legal philosophy.

I believe that Senator Craig was trying to solicit sex from that policeman. All of the facts I have support that conclusion, but what I am not sure if that is sufficient to warrant criminal prosecution.

I am very wary of the government and its power to use force against criminals. I want to be absolutely sure that someone is a criminal before they get sent to jail.

In this case, I inclined against thinking that foot-to-foot contact and some hand gestures are really sufficient reason to charge the man with disorderly conduct.

A typical statutory definition of disorderly conduct, in this case Indiana's, defines the offense in this way:

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

I guess touching someone's foot with gentle caressing with your own foot is kind of disruptive. I suppose it's technically assault on another person. But really.

The real story in all of this isn't whether or not what Senator Craig did is criminal but in light of his history of denying rights to gay people whether or not he enjoys same sex sodomy. Ordinarily, I wouldn't care, but given his political tendencies, his sexual ones become a little more interesting.

I wonder if the court will make him demonstrate this wide stance he uses in the toilet.

Posted by Flibbertigibbet at August 29, 2007 11:00 AM | TrackBack
Post a comment

Remember personal info?