Larry Craig Photo: WDCpix
U.S. Sen. Larry Craig’s mistake wasn’t letting the clock run out on appealing his airport bathroom sex-solicitation case to the Minnesota Supreme Court — it was bringing the wrong case in the first place. That’s the view of Charles Samuelson, executive director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN), who thinks that a refusal to acknowledge his homosexuality impeded Craig’s ability to make his legal arguments.
In an interview with the Minnesota Independent, Samuleson didn’t disagree with Craig attorney Tom Kelly, who said that asking the state’s high court to take the former Idaho senator’s appeal “would have been a futile exercise.”
“[The Supreme Court] can only take what his lawyers bring,” Samuelson said, and Craig had his attorneys bring only “a very small and limited technical issue about his guilty plea.”
But Samuelson said an appeal might have been effective had Craig made civil liberties arguments that the ACLU-MN raised in a friend-of-the-court brief. “Our issues would probably be more attractive to the [state] Supreme Court,” Samuelson said.
The ACLU-MN asserted that Craig’s arrest in a police sting meant to ensnare men seeking gay sex at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport men’s room was a classic example of government suppression of unpopular speech.
“The problem is he was reluctant to say he’s a gay man,” Samuelson said, adding that Craig’s recent retirement from office likely lowered the stakes beyond the point at which Craig would press his case, no matter what the issue.
The Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC), whose police set up the sting and pursued charges against Craig, seems to be in a similar frame of mind. The MAC, which is now fighting hard to extract as many dollars as possible from Delta Air Lines, turned away an apparently serious offer to buy, for $5,000, the bathroom stall where Craig’s alleged foot-tapping sex solicitation took place.
“We would not want to do that to the senator,” MAC spokesperson Patrick Hogan said.
12 Comments »
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
As a gay man, I am offended by the implication that we should condone and protect people seeking sex in a public bathroom. Sex in public areas IS NOT APPROPRIATE!!! It’s not like our state only busts gay people, recall the heterosexuals having sex in the Metrodome bathroom? Furthermore, foot tapping and hand waving in a bathroom stall is not speech.
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
As a not-gay man, I would second DavidD’s comment. The “gayness” or Larry Craig’s subjective viewpoint on that point is not at issue. I do wonder why the ACLU, an organization I nsupport in principle and in the past with funds, takes this position. Why isn’t Larry Craig’s subjective position on his sexuality his own business?
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
The ACLU’s reasoning is probably better sketched out in a previous post.
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
I read the previous post. It’s a pretty subtle and itself a somewhat controversial point: does a person have a free speech right to accost somebody, a stranger say, for sex? I agree that such an issue is within the domain of a free speech advocacy group like the ACLU. I can also see why it would be necessary for Larry Craig to acknowledge that he is gay to be able to argue in defense that the message that he heard with the tapping was an invitation to sex and therefore he was entrapped. Apparently, Larry Craig understood his lawyer’s advice and rejected it. Doesn’t that prove that Larry Craig does not believe that he is a gay man? Or are you suggesting that he is still not being honest with himself and his former constituents?
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
It is a proven fact that people who hate gays actually have gay tenancies and are suppressing them, or hate themselves for being gay. Take that phoney Ex REV. Hagee for instance.
Comment posted January 9, 2009 @ 12:46 am
This is really going back to Square One, which we shouldn’t have to do at this late date, and ask: Is it okay- both legally and morally- to solicit sex in a public venue such as a restroom, where a reasonable person thinks he has privacy and won’t be subjected to that
sort of thing when innocently taking a piss or Number Two.
The answer, whether Larry is straight or gay (okay, we know he’s gay) is No. The ACLU’s argument is too much a stretch. I think the ACLU’s supposed support of Larry, if you really think about it, was facetious and politically subsersive. To Larry, I mean. As if to say, “Look at the only friend you have left… the ACLU.”
Comment posted January 9, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
“It is a proven fact that people who hate gays actually have gay tenancies and are suppressing them”
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You can hate gays without being gay. I hate gays and I don’t have any gay tendencies. The bible says homosexuality is a sin and that we should hate gay people. Does that mean that every person who believes in the bible is gay simply because they follow the bible and hate gay people????? You gay lovers need to get over yourselfs, not everyone condones your destructive lifestyle. There are still a lot of us left who know the difference between right and wrong, and are willing to stand up for what we believe in.
Comment posted January 9, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
“follow the bible and hate gay people”
John: Where, exactly, does the bible instruct you to hate, well, anybody, much less gay people?
Comment posted January 9, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Thank you for this reporting. It, very briefly, gets to the point that so many other articles I’ve read about this incident have sought to avoid.
Comment posted January 10, 2009 @ 12:03 am
John..
“I hate gays and I don’t have any gay tendencies. The bible says homosexuality is a sin and that we should hate gay people.”
Has anyone ever questioned your intelligence, let alone your misinterpretation of the bible? If not, I am.
Henriette, you’re absolutely correct. The ACLU has rendered this case public to most likely showcase a Republican now eating his words…and actions.
It’s laughable and silly. Free speech is not a wank in public.
Comment posted January 12, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I am an attorney and I understand the ACLU’s argument and believe they have some very good points that are worthwhile. Unfortunately, they had a terrible set of facts and circumstances in this case to test the true constitutionality of the law. The biggest problem was Craig attempting to withdraw his guilty plea, which was just absurd. That alone pretty much doomed the case from the start.
The ACLU would have had a better argument with a better test case. For instance, if a man had only verbally propositioned another man in the bathroom and had been arrested for it. Then, the ACLU would have had a case where someone was arrested for speech alone, while the actual sex never occurred. Which happens everyday in bars across the country.
Essentially, the ACLU should have stayed out of this one and tried to find a better test case where someone was arrested for doing something that the general public would relate to, such as trying to pick someone up to have sex in private. The ACLU attempts to make this argument in their brief, but I think the facts don’t support their argument very well. Especially since Craig had already plead guilty. Thus, their legal arguments are good, they just did not have the facts to make the argument compelling.
Comment posted January 27, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
John, John, John, Another mixed up soul…lashing out at gays and referring to the Bible. I feel sorry for these closet cases who spend their lives in denial. Using religion to fool themselves. Oh well.
Religion..what a scam to keep the fear going. You should see the looks on the faces of the little old ladies who knock at my door from time to time.
When they ask “Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?” I reply, “Have you accepted Zarmoz the space alien as your personal savior?” Smile. They stopped knocking on my door a long time ago.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment