Comments on: ACLU: Afraid to say he’s gay, Larry Craig took wrong case to court

By: Tommy

Tommy — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:50:46 +0000

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.

By: Antonio

Antonio — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:37:51 +0000

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.

By: Davide C.

Davide C. — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:03:14 +0000

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.

By: KL

KL — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:54:26 +0000

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.

By: Paul Schmelzer

Paul Schmelzer — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:48:29 +0000

“follow the bible and hate gay people”

John: Where, exactly, does the bible instruct you to hate, well, anybody, much less gay people?

By: john

john — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:41:29 +0000

“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.

By: Henriette Wayne

Henriette Wayne — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:46:35 +0000

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.”

By: lazercat

lazercat — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:23:19 +0000

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.

By: jonerik

jonerik — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:59:05 +0000

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?

By: Chris Steller

Chris Steller — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:26:56 +0000

The ACLU's reasoning is probably better sketched out in a previous post.