Like Saletan, I see nothing in Sen. Craig’s behavior that compels him to resign. Craig’s episode in that men’s room was a bit tawdry, and unseemly for a U.S. Senator. But really not all that objectionable to me. I’d prefer that if guys want to hook up in public restrooms, they then go somewhere else and have their fun in private. Sex in public places is bound to get you arrested; that’s what happened to the Senator, and that’s all that happened. I’d be fine to leave it at that.

Saletan speaks of Sen. Craig’s hypocrisy in supporting “don’t ask, don’t tell” and his other presumed principled stands against gay rights. I suppose I agree, but even that isn’t what bothers me most about this episode. I find dishonor in the Senator’s conduct, not merely for the how it throws open the disparity and the hypocrisy between his stated political beliefs and his personal behavior, but mainly because when his behavior became public, he could not find the courage to acknowledge it and apologize, to his family and his constituents. He may yet find that courage, I’m sure it’s not easy. But to me, that failure to own up has been what’s most objectionable in his behavior.

Some on the Left, perhaps most notably Glen Greenwald at Salon (<link>), have objected to the hypocrisy within the GOP that rails for Sen. Craig’s resignation for soliciting sex in a men’s room, while being willing to forgive and forget Sen. Vitter’s (R-La.) behavior in soliciting sex from prostitutes. Greenwald (any many others) also point to the differences in the political stakes for Craig to resign (and be replaced by a GOP governor) and for Vitter (who’d be replaced by a Dem. governor). That’s all true, to be sure. But, in my mind at least, part of the difference also is in Vitter’s owning up to his behavior and apologizing to his family and his constituents. Yes he only did it after this behavior was exposed publicly, but he did do it.

I can only hope that Sen. Craig can find the decency to do the same. And if so, that the rest of us can find the decency to accept such an apology. I fear, though, that Greenwald may be right that the hostility toward gays and homosexual behavior in Craig’s party is the overriding political consideration, and would trump any chance that such an apology could be heard and accepted. Which may be a big reason why Craig hasn’t made one.

So any female senator who didn't supporta feminist bill is a hypocrite?

I guess white senators who didn't support white power were hypocrites too?

You are disgusting.

Even if he was gay, he would still retain the right to say "I don't think gays should be here, be there, or allowed to marry".

Being lumped in a group does not mean you have the right to insult him for not agreeing with that group.

Perhaps “hypocrisy” is too strong a word to apply here. Maybe it’s just extremely odd.

It may also be wrong to analyze Craig’s political stands here in light of his behavior, which is personal and private. As you say, he’s entitled to his political stands, whatever his private life happens to be. However, I think hypocrisy is not too strong a word to apply to his personal and private behavior, since it appears he portrayed himself outwardly as a faithful and heterosexual family man while engaging in this other stuff surreptitiously.

We use to call these people odd or "queer" (which ment odd) in order to show that we don't really like those people. Now "queer" has been taken by homosexuals (it use to apply to another abnormal). So, there is no real word to describe actions like that.

He isn't a hypocrite. He is a liar. Remember, he took a marriage vow which binded him to his wife. Obviously, if he was going into a bathroom like that, he was breaking his vows.

That is where his sin comes from.

If he has the right to be a hypocrite, we have the right to say so. It's one thing to say that he's a hypocrite, and another entirely to say he should step down. I personally think the repugs who are calling for him to resign are even bigger hypocrites than he is, ESPECIALLY in light of their acceptance of Vitter's illegal extramarital dalliances with prostitutes. I guess Edwin Edwards' statement applies to Republicans... the only way to get your fellow party members to turn against you is to get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

I think it would be even more wrong for a gay man or lesbian to campaign against gay rights. It is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy for a gay man to actively persecute gays (denying them rights, promoting their exclusion and expulsion from the armed services, etc.) while also actively cruising men in public restrooms.

I say let him stay in office, let the voters of Idaho decide what they think of him. Leave him there as an example to call out about Republican "family values" and what so many morally bankrupt "family values" conservatives REALLY believe.

We’re in agreement on what Craig’s transgressions are, though I would also add his failure to own up to them once this matter became public.

I used the word “odd” here not to describe Craig as a person, or even his actions in that men’s room, but to describe the possibility you outlined in your response that he could have been fully aware and accepting of his sexual preference(s) and homosexual leanings, and that nonetheless his political stance against gays in the military was a principled one. That would strike me as odd if that were the case, though I very much doubt it. More likely, it seems to me, is that he was able to close off this part of himself, and actually believe himself to be “not gay” and “a respectable person” as he’s been quoted, and that he separated that respectable family man persona from the person who solicited sex in men’s rooms. And that would be a personal hypocrisy, not necessarily a political one, but also not merely lying.

If he has a right to be something, then you cannot label him as a hypocrite.

Hypocricy is a moral determination of someone who is doing what they have no right to do.

If he breaks a law, he is a criminal. If he breaks a marriage vow, he is a liar. However, passing laws based on a political belief is his First Amendment right. It is unjust for you to attack him for following one of our sacred, founding principles!

Here again we see San's weird assertions about rights and what they have to do with hypocrisy, and your lack of understanding of the meaning of the words you're abusing.

Hypocrisy has nothing to do with rights. The definition from Merriam-Webster: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

Hard to argue that he's not a hypocrite based on the definition of hypocrisy in the English language. Maybe it means something else in your language, San, but in English, Craig is a hypocrite.

Well said, Steve-R.

Of course there is hypocrisy here. I was married to a woman for 12 years before having the courage to come out, and I certainly lied to her and others when I was pretending to be someone I wasn't created to be. But I also was strongly in favor of full civil rights for gays, and didn't preach against homosexuality, cast aspersions on gays and lesbians, or support legislation and policies (like Don't Ask, Don't Tell) that discriminate against homosexuals. In other words, yes, San, there is a difference between being a liar and being a hypocrite. But they're not mutually exclusive. I was a liar before, but not a hypocrite. Craig is both.

As for his recent comments, I also was offended at his comment that he is not now, and never has been, gay. First of all, that's a bizarrely McCarthyesque statement to make ("Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"). But more important, if he isn't gay now, than he never was gay. If he is gay now (if? ha!), then he always has been. Just how self-delusional is this guy?

Mr. Craig: Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, honey.

"Failure" to "own up" to something?

You mean you don't have the right to plead the fifth anymore? Or that you aren't innocent of soliciting gay sex from a rest room until actually covicted of that offense?

I guess that whole Bill of Rights thing is sooo antequated anyway.

Your quotation of Merriam-Webster's is not the definition of hypocricy, because hypocricy is a term dealing with the metaphysical and the nature of virtues.

And you still can't prove that he is gay. He does have a wife and many children, it means that he obviously had heterosexual sex at some time. Even in Brokeback Mountain the one guy decided that he didn't want to continue a gay relationship.

You spent 12 years before breaking a sacred vow and lying to that woman.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You felt that getting your binky pulled by some other guy was more important than a commitment. I hope that you never get hired for a job, get loaned money, or anything else which requires personal responsibility, because you are just a selfish, disgusting bastard, who cares more about sex than about keeping your promises.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Way to raise the level of debate, San! You don't know my personal history or story (would it get you to apologize if I let you know that it was my wife who broke our sacred vow and cheated on me, which is what led to our divorce and my subsequent coming out? Or are you to typical judgmental right-winger who won't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of condemning people?) I will tell you I have never had or solicited sex in a bathroom stall. That is just disgusting, whether you are gay or straight.

I am "ashamed" of trying in the past to be anyone other than who God created me to be. I am ashamed of people like you who are so self-righteous and arrogant, and so quick to pass judgment on complete strangers. I am ashamed of a government that will kick people out of the military for being gay and honest, but not for being gay and dishonest (or for that matter, straight and dishonest). I am not ashamed of being gay.

But this isn't about you or me. It's about Larry Craig -- who is gay despite having been married (that was my point -- that I of all people know that you can be gay even if you have a wife). But I'm curious as to whether your delusion about Craig extends to, say, James McGreevey, who also was married -- twice! -- while having sex with men. Do you accept that he's gay? Or are you trying so hard to excuse Craig on every level because he's a Republican? Because if so -- there may be yet another hypocrite in our midst, don't you think?

U.S. Senators should not solicit sex in public restrooms. Craig was caught soliciting sex in a public restroom. The fact that Craig was married with a family and solicited sex from a stranger are aggravating factors that add to the disgrace he has brought upon his office. He should accordingly resign.

Clearly there are people on the right and left who will defend any conduct of one of their "own," but in this case there is not much room for dispute. Those defending Craig on these boards are generally just trying to muddy the debate and confuse the issues.

"You don't know my personal history"

So, you were beaten by your dad and thats why you are gay? Or you decided that you hated society and thats why you are gay? Or some other bs reason?

It doesn't matter.

YOU made a promise.

YOU broke a promise.

YOU are weak and a coward.

YOU wanted gay sex. YOU broke a promise so that you could try and claim that YOUR desires for sex were some how okay.