Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< 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. >>> JohnS1, could you tell us where you read this? Was it the same place where you picked up the idea to somehow tie the ACLU into this?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Meanwhile, in breaking news, apparently Craig has reversed himself again, and will resign as originally "intended< in a subsequent announcement - Craig has announced he is forming a 3rd party with John Kerry - the flip flop party - designed to appeal to everyone at one time or another.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "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." You'd be better off being facetious here.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'm guessing either his lawyer talked some sense into him, or the GOP leadership told him to go away yesterday, or both." Oh yeah. At a minimum, the GOP leadership. And I don't blame them one bit.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Try the junipero serra rest stop on 280 - you just might get lucky." I've been there. No luck. Maybe I should bathe more often. Or less often. I'm not sure.
Originally Posted By jonvn Anyway, this whole thing is utterly sordid, and if we didn't have this insane anti-gay crap going on in this country, it would be meaningless. The whole thing is pretty bad. The individual person's behavior is disgusting to the max. That someone is so self-loathing of their own sexuality that they'd go into politics to persecute people just like him, is horrible. That he'd feel to be so driven to something that he'd engage in anonymous sex in a restroom shows just what a choice being gay is. The whole thing just is sickening from any perspective you wish to look at it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Just when you thought Craig couldn't say something even more stupid, now his camp says he was going to quit, anyway. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/06/craig/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/09/06/craig/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "JohnS1, could you tell us where you read this? Was it the same place where you picked up the idea to somehow tie the ACLU into this?" I don't remember everywhere I read news when I am looking at a variety of Internet news sites and listening to a variety of TV and radio news shows. I just seemed to recall the language implying that the bathroom had been used as a place where gays were meeting other gays. I guess I may not be very imaginative, but I can't even begin to imagine what a horrid place a bathroom would be for sexual relations. How incredibly unclean and tacky that would be. So I just assunmed the reports meant that people would meet there then go somewhere else. As for the ACLU, I didn't read anything anywhere about it. That was my whole point - I was surprised that I hadn't seen anything anywhere, because it seemed just the sort of case they would pursue. After all, even a number of prominent democrats have questioned the rationale behind the airport police staking out the restrooms.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Bump - Well, I wondered if this wouldn't happen - the ACLU announced today that it supports Larry Craig and will aid in his defense if he wants them to.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The ACLU says that: "It is a crime to have sex in public. It is not a crime to propose or solicit sex in public, whether it's in a bar or in a bathroom," Romero said." This is a defensible position, although in this particular case, since Craig was only at that airport for a short time to change planes, he clearly was looking for sex right then and there, not in another place at a later time. Still, the cop couldn't have assumed that, and there's a case to be made here. I don't know if it will hold up, particularly if the Mnpls. police can show public requests for policing of the bathrooms based on unwanted advances in the past. But if nothing else, it gives the lie to the idea that the ACLU only supports liberals - it supports what it sees as civil liberties. However, my guess is that Craig will refuse the ACLU's help; because after all, he still denies he WAS soliciting sex in the first place.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "But if nothing else, it gives the lie to the idea that the ACLU only supports liberals - it supports what it sees as civil liberties." I don't know that many make this argument much any more. If we are going to label the positions taken by the ACLU, I'd say that they are known for taking on "unpopular causes." Be honest though - most of these do tend to be far left causes - some so far left that even the average liberal wouldn't support them. But this didn't surprise me; that's why I first asked why the ACLU hadn't become involved a few weeks ago.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 They take on civil liberty cases that almost by definition are unpopular, because it's rare that speech (for instance) that is popular is not allowed to flourish. They don't take on liberal or left-wing causes that have nothing to do with civil liberties - for instance, I don't think they have a position on single-payer health insurance. "Unpopular" speech/assembly/behavior tends to translate to left-wing more than right-wing because, by definition, conservatism tends to favor the status quo while liberalism looks for change. But when they fight for the rights of Nazis to march, for instance, they are taking the stance they always take: unpopular (or even abhorrent) speech is still speech and must be protected if the right is to mean anything.
Originally Posted By jonvn "if the Mnpls. police can show public requests for policing of the bathrooms " That doesn't really enter into it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Probably not. It might if the case hinged on "why are you policing the bathrooms looking for people indulging in a victimless crime?" if they could say "we had complaints and people saying they felt harassed." But that's probably not going to enter into the Craig case.
Originally Posted By jonvn They wouldn't base it on that. They'd base it on the right they claim people have to ask for sex. You never ask WHY in a courtroom, it opens you up for all kinds of grief. You don't know what someone is going to say.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What I'm saying is that CRAIG would never base it on the right to solicit sex in a public place, and the appropriateness (or not) of policing it, because he still says he wasn't soliciting sex to begin with. So I don't think he's going to accept the ACLU's help; they're going for two different things here.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I'm disappointed in the ACLU. (And so much for my lofty defense of them earlier in the thread.) To me, this is not a victimless crime. (Granted, I don't think it's a SERIOUS crime on the continuum of crimes, but a crime nonetheless.) I just don't think that any random airline passenger who has to dash into the can to answer nature's call while hurrying between two connecting flights should be subjected to another guy in an adjacent stall putting his hand under the partition and signaling that he wants a quickie. Public bathrooms should be a place where you can go do your business without the interferrence of unwanted sexual advances. Again, I'm not sure where I draw the line. Flirting at the sinks? Okay. But... hand signals under the stall partition? C'mon. No way. There IS one important thing I'm not sure of, even after all the lurid coverage of this case. It's usually a progressively bold dance between two guys in this situation. One makes the first almost-imperceptible overture. If the second guy doesn't respond, the first guy drops it. If the second guy is interested, he makes a small move. The first responds a little more noticeably. And so on. Each usually behaves cautiously -- he's afraid of offending someone who's not interested and/or afraid of getting busted. Unless the other party reciprocates, he goes no further. Which makes me wonder what the cop did in this case to encourage Craig's behavior (if anything). If he clearly signaled an interest in pursuing the hook-up, I would say that Craig has a case that he wasn't bothering anyone. NOT, as Dabob pointed out, that Craig would pursue this line of reasoning.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I dunno - it seems to me that it would be a perfectly reasonable line of defense to say - well, I still insist I wasn't doing X, Y or Z, but I can't seem to convince you of that, so if you're going to insist on accusing me of X, Y and Z, then let me just say that in my opinion, X, Y and Z are not crimes in the first place, so I should be absolved of guilt on that basis.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That wouldn't work, though. You can't go into a court and say "I don't think X, Y, and Z should be a crime" if the statutes of that state say they ARE a crime. You may not think that, say, public nudity should be a crime to begin with, but if the state you're in says it is, you can't defend yourself against a public nudity charge by saying it shouldn't be a crime. Craig's defense would have to be either a). he didn't play footsie or wave his hand at all, in which case he's calling the cop a liar; b). he might have done some of this stuff, but it wasn't intended to solicit sex. The latter is about all he's got, but I don't like his chances.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, of course you can say something isn't a crime if the law that makes it a crime is itself illegal. And if you can show the law is illegal, you can't be actually convicted of it. What would make it an illegal law? If it violates the Supreme Law of the Land, which is the Constitution. That trumps all other laws. If a law is passed that violates the Constitution, it is illegal and unenforceable.
