Originally Posted By JohnS1 Something occurred to me this morning - Although his politics are, I am sure, abhorrent to them - why is the ACLU not jumping in to protest the practice of authorities at the airport where Craig was apprehended? What legal right do airport authorities have to run a sting operation which looks for gay men trying to hook up with other gay men? Where is the crime? Aren't the rights of gay men being violated? Why isn't the ACLU all over this, I wonder??
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< What legal right do airport authorities have to run a sting operation which looks for gay men trying to hook up with other gay men? >>> Gay men hooking up is not the issue. Doing so in public bathrooms is the issue. I don't think the ACLU claims that gay men or anyone else has the right to have sex in public bathrooms. That's probably why they're not involved in the Craig case.
Originally Posted By ecdc SuperDry is probably correct. Although it doesn't make the media as much, and although some conservatives hate to admit it, the ACLU has a long record of supporting anyone, regardless of politics, whom they feel has had their rights violated. It often surprises religious people, for example, to find out their churches have filed briefs jointly with the ACLU over religious proselytizing when communities try and ban it.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Then those people don't watch the news much - as the ACLU ( and for the record I am not a fan) - does represent anyone - they have represented Skinheads and American Nazi Party members and such, so to their credit they do take anyone who they feel has been wronged. for Granny - or AZTEC Nation or SD kid or whatever name they use today who keeps wailing on with their question on this case -- why would the ACLU not be involved if it is so cut and dried ?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "What legal right do airport authorities have to run a sting operation which looks for gay men trying to hook up with other gay men?" Your entire post is facetious, but airport police have the same authority as any other police department to do such an operation. Other than that, I'm puzzled why you'd need to get a slam in on the ACLU as it relates to this case.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'd rather they'd devote their full attention to something that would likely kill people rather than bothering with this useless junk.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'd rather they'd devote their full attention to something that would likely kill people rather than bothering with this useless junk." Yeah, but that's you. Likely the people who use the airport and its restrooms have asked the police to do something about soliciting for sex in the bathrooms. That's not an unreasonable request whatsoever.
Originally Posted By jonvn I would think that if you asked the average person on the street if they thought the cops should devote their time to terrorism prevention or gay sex prevention, they'd likely opt for the terrorism prevention. Perhaps they have nothing better to do in MSP. As Bill Maher said, once you get rid of anonymous gay sex at that airport, what else is there to do?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Your entire post is facetious, but airport police have the same authority as any other police department to do such an operation. Other than that, I'm puzzled why you'd need to get a slam in on the ACLU as it relates to this case." Sorry if it seemed I was being facetious, because I really meant it. And I know all about the ACVLU's record of defending unlikely people - that's the whole reason I said it. I didn't mean it as a slam at all. Also - I would agree the ACLU should not support sex in the restrooms, but all I have read indicates that there was no sex in the restrooms, but the place was being used as a place for people to connect with other gays. Then I am assuming they went elsewhere to, er, consummate their friendship. Ergo - what is the crime in meeting someone there?
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Well, that's the urban myth -- and conservative slur -- about the ACLU, isn't it? That they'll defend ANYTHING. As SPP posted, there's a difference between defending people whose rights have (presumably) been trampled and those who are just unpopular and out-and-out guilty. To their credit, the ACLU is willing to draw a line between the two.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<but all I have read indicates that there was no sex in the restrooms, but the place was being used as a place for people to connect with other gays. Then I am assuming they went elsewhere to, er, consummate their friendship. Ergo - what is the crime in meeting someone there?>> I got totally the other picture from the news. That guys met, had their brief courtship, and then consumated their relationship right there in the Minnesotan can. <<what is the crime in meeting someone there?>> The crime would not be meeting, but soliciting. It's a fine line, isn't it? You are both standing at the mirrors. You catch each others' eyes. You flirt -- verbally or not. One of you follows the other outside. You chat. You decide to go to one of your hotel rooms. In my mind: A Lovely and Crime-Free Hook-up. [Remember to play safe!] You're in a stall. You're trying to do your business (as much as you hate to do it in public places, and you really wish that out of the eight open stalls, the guy next to you would have chosen one farther away from you.) The guy starts nudging his foot over to your space. Jeez, what is THIS?! OH! He thinks I want sex. Or at least HE wants sex. Ick.) The cops started policing this particular bathroom because there were complaints that the solicitation that ocurred there was making travelers uncomfortable. I don't blame MSP for trying to "clean up" their airport to make it more comfortable for the majority of their passengers.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I would think that if you asked the average person on the street if they thought the cops should devote their time to terrorism prevention or gay sex prevention, they'd likely opt for the terrorism prevention.>> Well, that's a false dilemma, isn't it? Let's assume that terrorism is the biggest crime that can occur in an airport. Should the airport police force then logically devote NO effort toward shoplifting in the airport's retail stores, toward illegal parking in the drop-off zones, toward reports of missing children in the terminals?
Originally Posted By jonvn No. Those are things they should also be worrying about. Unless there is nothing else going on at MSP. I think this sort of thing should be at the bottom of the pile. I can understand why some people would want this contained, but I think that that there are worse things they could be trying to stop.
Originally Posted By jonvn Besides, where am I going to go solicit now for anonymouse gay sex, if I can't do it at MSP?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <but all I have read indicates that there was no sex in the restrooms, but the place was being used as a place for people to connect with other gays. Then I am assuming they went elsewhere to, er, consummate their friendship. Ergo - what is the crime in meeting someone there?> Most "classic" footsie in bathroom stalls is intended to result in sex in those stalls. Especially in an airport, where people are by definition passing through. Take Craig's case: he really couldn't have asked anyone back to his place - he doesn't have a place in Minneapolis. Nor did he have time to go to anyone else's place; he was changing planes there, and we know from the police report that he was worried about missing his connecting flight due to the time the arrest/interview took up. So he was definitely looking for something right then, right there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Meanwhile, in breaking news, apparently Craig has reversed himself again, and will resign as originally "intended." <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17152243/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17 152243/</a> "Sen. Larry Craig has all but dropped any notion of trying to complete his term, and is focused on helping Idaho send a new senator to Washington within a few weeks, his top spokesman said Thursday. "The most likely scenario, by far, is that by October there will be a new senator from Idaho," Craig spokesman Dan Whiting told the Associated Press." I'm guessing either his lawyer talked some sense into him, or the GOP leadership told him to go away yesterday, or both.
