Sunday, September 02, 2007

More Than a Bit of Difference

It's a rare occasion when I disagree with Steve Miller, the blog runner person for the Independent Gay Forum.

And this thing with Larry Craig is one of them.

Steve appears to be under the impression that the fact that Craig was pressured to resign is an indication of a double standard in treatment of sex scandals.
Yet more still. I'm away for an extended Labor Day weekend so haven't added much. Assuredly, Craig is no poster boy but a sad story of the closet (the near total lack of any sympathy for him, from left or right, is another story). Even so, here's a thought:

* A president is caught having sex with an intern in the Oval Office and lies to cover it up; he finishes his term (and may yet return as president-consort).
* A congressman sends salacious e-mails to former pages now of legal age; he resigns in disgrace.
* A senator engages in the illegal activity of hiring prostitutes; he's finishing his term and no one is suggesting prosecution.
* A senator taps his toes in a men's room in a subtle signal only a fellow seeker would recognize and respond to; he's entrapped, charged with a crime and forced to resign in disgrace.

All together, guess which orientation is cut no slack?

However, as I pointed out:
  • Congressman is accused of lewd sexual behavior and assault against staffers and lobbyists; forced to resign in disgrace.
  • Congressman has "consensual" affair with 17-year-old congressional page; issues profuse apologies, but is voted out of office in next election.


  • Congressman not only solicits, but appears to facilitate operation of prostitution ring out of his apartment; not only does not resign, but is given high-level chairmanship position
  • Congressman has "consensual" affair with 17-year-old page; does not resign and continues to receive support, fundraising, and committee assignments

The last two were gay (Barney Frank and Gerry Studds); the first two were straight (Bob Packwood and Dan Crane).

So which orientation is it that's being "cut no slack"?

UPDATE: I missed a point about Dan Crane. Turns out I had originally said he had resigned, when in fact he apologized, but was defeated again when he ran for re-election.

Which moves the point to voters cutting people like Crane no slack.

No comments: