If the men quoted in a story in today's Idaho Stateman are to be believed, Senator Larry "I'm Not Gay" Craig really got around. There are now four gay men who say that they have had sexual encounters with Craig who is now more famous for his bathroom exploits than for his notoriously anti-gay voting record. Another man is claiming that Craig tried to toe-tap in 2006 in a bathroom at the Denver International Airport.
Now this could be a case of guys jumping on the bandwagon in hopes of getting their 15 minutes of fame. I don't know. Usually where there's smoke, there's usually at least a spark of fire. Craig has been denying that he is gay since 1982 when a congressional gay sex scandal broke. His denial came even though there had been no allegation thrown his way. He quickly married a woman and adopted her three kids.
As with the Statesman's August report, the new evidence is not definitive. There are no videos, no love letters, no voice messages. Like last August, they are he-said, he-said allegations about a man seeking discreet sex from partners whom he counted on to never tell.
But the Statesman's investigation, which included reviews of travel and property records and background checks on all five men, found nothing to disprove the five new accounts. The men offer telling and sometimes similar details about what happened, or the senator's travel records place him in the city where sex is alleged to have occurred, or his accusers told credible witnesses at the time of the incident.
Craig has said he hoped to keep his guilty plea secret. Only after news of the guilty plea broke Aug. 27 did he tell his wife, staff, colleagues and constituents. His admission of guilt, taken together with the three accounts published Aug. 28 and the five new statements, add weight to the evidence that Craig has been living a double life.
The Idaho Stateman's story includes audio interviews with some of the men claiming to have had encounters with Craig.
As Agent Mulder from The X Files used to say "The truth is out there." We just don't know where. Yet.
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
8 Comments
« AIDS: Where is Our Rage? | Home | What Do the Log Cabin Republicans Have Against Mitt Romney? »
ACCUSATIONS of having sex with someone. How charming! You forgot to include the exact charge with statute number and definition that Larry Craig pleaded guilty. Stop fanning the flames. It tends to burn all of us. Again please serve your readers and tell us the exact charge he pleaded guilty to whenever you happen to write about "crime." The ACLU took on his case for a reason whether you can separate it in your mind or not.
ewe | December 2, 2007 4:58 PM
Reply to this comment
But do we really need to know? Lots of men have sex in unusual places and not under ideal circumstances.
It always pisses me off when newspapers run articles detailing "So-and-so citizen got caught trying to solicit sex in a park." We try the men before a court does - in the court of public opinion.
This is no different.
Bil Browning | December 3, 2007 9:03 AM
Reply to this comment
Bil,
The key difference is between other men that may have sex in unusual places and Larry Craig is that Craig has voted against every single piece of gay rights legislation that has come his way. Every single one. Then he gets arrested for soliciting sex with another man in a public place?
Yeah, we need to know because it will help to point out just how hypocritical and cynical the anti-gay conservatives are. Too many of them have enjoyed their dalliances with us all the while working against our movement for civil rights.
Michael Crawford | December 3, 2007 9:10 AM
Reply to this comment
I agree that Craig is a hypocrite, Michael. I'm not arguing that in the least.
But so are most of the men caught in the parks with their pants down. Most of those men don't identify as "gay" either and would more than likely have voted the same way Craig did if they were in his shoes.
Someone can have despicable politics, but that doesn't give us the right to judge his sex life (as long as it hurts no one!) anymore than Craig's dislike for our politics shouldn't give him the right to judge our sex lives. It's too much of a slippery slope.
Bil Browning | December 3, 2007 9:21 AM
Reply to this comment
Bil,
Larry Craig is in a position to hurt us and has repeatedly voted against legal protections for LGBT people. That's far different than some Average Joe who doesn't identify as gay and having sex with men on the side. Craig is in a position to help or to hurt and he has chosen to hurt.
I am not judging his sex life, but I pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.
Michael Crawford | December 3, 2007 10:15 AM
Reply to this comment
Again, I'm not arguing that Craig has hurt our community or that he's a hypocrite...
I'm just saying these are sex acts that may or may not have happened, none of which led to any legal charges. At this point we're just speculating and passing judgement on him for his sex life - something we fight against regularly.
As much as it kills me to agree with Ewe... *grins* I tend to agree with:
Just my opinion though - and you know what they say about opinions... It's a slippery slope.
Bil Browning | December 3, 2007 10:22 AM
Reply to this comment
I could care less about Craig's personal identity dilemma. It is extremely entertaining to see his scandalous sex life share the newscast with the latest Iowa poll results.
He looks like the old fool that he is, and his party looks like a group of enabling weirdos as they struggle to attract the religious fanatics they need to win elections.
If it is fair game to use my mundane relationship as evidence of an attack on marriage, then it sure as hell is fair to call his extra marital, santorum soaked, cornholing as proof of his unworthiness to serve as a member of the party that boasts of moral fortitude.
They should make him squeal like a pig.
patrick | December 3, 2007 11:17 AM
Reply to this comment
But is it fair game, Patrick? I mean, really? Think about that for a moment. Is your mundane relationship evidence of an attack on marriage? Is so, fair game.
If not, it's actually the "eye for an eye" theory that you're espousing...
Bil Browning | December 3, 2007 5:15 PM
Reply to this comment