Senator Craig

**bartl** · 09-05-2007, 10:52 AM

Can you please tell me when Senator Craig tried to criminalize sexual relations between members of the same sex? Last I heard, he came out in favor of states allowing civil unions. While that's not requiring minimum hiring quotas of gays, it doesn't sound like criminalizing their behavior, either.

**badMike** · 09-05-2007, 01:29 PM

Craig has said that he's for so-called "civil unions", but has voted consistently against gay marriage:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/...vil_Rights.htm

He also said voted "Yes" that it's ok for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

He also voted against expanding hate crimes to include homosexuality in the definition.

Not the best record for gay rights, no.

**Steven Grant** · 09-05-2007, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by bartl

Can you please tell me when Senator Craig tried to criminalize sexual relations between members of the same sex? Last I heard, he came out in favor of states allowing civil unions. While that's not requiring minimum hiring quotas of gays, it doesn't sound like criminalizing their behavior, either.

I don't have the article in front of me, but according to the Idaho Statesman, which should know, he has routinely opposed both gay marriage and "civil unions."

- Grant

**badMike** · 09-05-2007, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Steven Grant

I don't have the article in front of me, but according to the Idaho Statesman, which should know, he has routinely opposed both gay marriage and "civil unions."

I found this in a Statesman editorial:

"• On Nov. 6, 2006, one day before the election, Craig released a statement saying he supported a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions. The amendment passed. Yet in a May 14 interview with the Statesman, Craig said he supported same-sex civil unions."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/1264/story/144614.html

Other Statesmen articles seem to be consistent with this story.

**Paul McEnery** · 09-05-2007, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by badMike

I found this in a Statesman editorial:

"• On Nov. 6, 2006, one day before the election, Craig released a statement saying he supported a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions. The amendment passed. Yet in a May 14 interview with the Statesman, Craig said he supported same-sex civil unions."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/1264/story/144614.html

Other Statesmen articles seem to be consistent with this story.

Guess getting two cocks in his mouth at the same time has helped him out here. Stretchy mouth, easier to talk out of both sides of it.

**FunkyGreenJerusalem** · 09-05-2007, 08:06 PM

Ya'see, it's not the cock that his obsessed with so much, it's the whole naughty factor involved with it.
He doesn't like meeting another fellow in bar, having a dance and a drink, and then heading back to whoever's for a night of mutual orgasms.
No, Craig's obviously all about the thrill of sticking it through a hole in a cubicle door, and hoping a stranger is good enough to place their mouth around it.
It's a symptom of that whole 'let's get the country back to Norman Rockwell times' that the Republican party has - it's given them outdated ideas on how things should be done, including getting a serious dicking.

Originally Posted by bartl

Can you please tell me when Senator Craig tried to criminalize sexual relations between members of the same sex? Last I heard, he came out in favor of states allowing civil unions. While that's not requiring minimum hiring quotas of gays, it doesn't sound like criminalizing their behavior, either.

I note you didn't try and dodge his claims about Clinton being unfit for the job though.

**Paul McEnery** · 09-05-2007, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by FunkyGreenJerusalem

Ya'see, it's not the cock that his obsessed with so much, it's the whole naughty factor involved with it.
He doesn't like meeting another fellow in bar, having a dance and a drink, and then heading back to whoever's for a night of mutual orgasms.
No, Craig's obviously all about the thrill of sticking it through a hole in a cubicle door, and hoping a stranger is good enough to place their mouth around it.
It's a symptom of that whole 'let's get the country back to Norman Rockwell times' that the Republican party has - it's given them outdated ideas on how things should be done, including getting a serious dicking.

I note you didn't try and dodge his claims about Clinton being unfit for the job though.

He was just aesthetically offended by the bendy penis. Clearly unfit for purpose!

**Steven Grant** · 09-06-2007, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by FunkyGreenJerusalem

Ya'see, it's not the cock that his obsessed with so much, it's the whole naughty factor involved with it.

Technically, that seems to be true. It's kind of like why rape isn't about sex and arson is. While sex is the medium of rape, the object for the rapist isn't sexual gratification but the exercise of power. (On the other hand, in most arson cases, even for professional arsonists - and often for firemen as well - the object is sexual pleasure since many people but arsonists especially get aroused by fire.)

The Craig thing, similarly, doesn't seem to really be about homosexuality, so it's quite possible that from his perspective he doesn't consider himself a closeted gay. While homosexual behavior is the medium of the experience, what the experience would really seem to be about is the danger and the taboo-breaking. Which kind of makes it considerably more dangerous than if he were gay, because if that's what's really going on it would have the strong potential for escalation as success would drive him to more danger and more serious taboos, just to get the same kick.

- Grant

**FunkyGreenJerusalem** · 09-06-2007, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Steven Grant

Which kind of makes it considerably more dangerous than if he were gay, because if that's what's really going on it would have the strong potential for escalation as success would drive him to more danger and more serious taboos, just to get the same kick.

- Grant

Maybe he'd have started to hint that gun-control or free health care was a good idea!

**bartl** · 09-06-2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by badMike

Craig has said that he's for so-called "civil unions", but has voted consistently against gay marriage:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/...vil_Rights.htm

He also said voted "Yes" that it's ok for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

He also voted against expanding hate crimes to include homosexuality in the definition.

Not the best record for gay rights, no.

But failing to grant special privileges to gays is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior.

**That JonoGuy** · 09-06-2007, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by bartl

But failing to grant special privileges to gays is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior.

Well, if you you warp the argument like that, yeah, it does make sense.

Gays aren't aren't asking for anything "special", just equal.

By not granting equal rights gays are being put into a position as second class citizens. They are being penalized for not being straight.

**saucemaster** · 09-06-2007, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by bartl

But failing to grant special privileges to gays is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior.

being allowed to marry someone you love isn't a 'special privilege', if everyone is allowed to do it.

if anything makes it a privilege, it is that heteros are allowed to do it while no one can.

**Spike-X** · 09-07-2007, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by bartl

But failing to grant special privileges to gays is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior.

What kind of "special privileges" are we talking about here?

**bartl** · 09-07-2007, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by That JonoGuy

Gays aren't aren't asking for anything "special", just equal.

Let's see. Non-discrimination in employment, as practiced, means that if a business does not have a proportion of people in a position that is proportional to the population as a whole, there is a prima facie case of discrimination, meaning that the burden of proof is on the employer, not the rejected employee. That translates to minimum quotas that have to be hired; in other words, if a business does not have a number of gay employees reflecting the population as a whole, they can be sued, and forced to hire employees BECAUSE they're gay. Now, add into this a difficulty in coming up with a legal definition of a gay person, and we're talking extra privileges. And denying it is not criminalizing being gay.

Next, let's go to hate crimes (which, by the way, I think are unconstitutional, as does noted Communist civil rights attorney, Ron Kuby. They criminalize thought, and set a very dangerous precedent). Hate crimes take certain groups of people, and make it a BIGGER crime to assault them than it is to assault an average person. Therefore, adding gender preference to hate crimes makes it a bigger crime to assault a gay person than it is to assault another person. Doesn't sound like "equal" to me, and denying it does not criminalize being gay.

Finally, let's go to gay marriage. We are talking about radically altering an institution that has existed for thousands of years so a few people can feel better about themselves (the legal ramifications can easily be fixed by other means, such as, say, being able to legally designate anybody you want as your "next of kin".). I have no problem with this, personally, but don't call it "equal rights", until I have the right to go into a women's rest room (although, frankly, from looking at the lines in theaters and malls, it would make a lot of sense to allow women to use MEN'S rooms). And it STILL does not criminalize being gay.