Readers of the Carr essays know that the author maintains no religious affiliation. He is not a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Hindu. And certainly he is not the Protestant that his World War II dog tags proclaim him to be. And finally, his Irish ancestry bars him from membership in the Anglican communion. With this background in mind, the old essayist was astounded to find that the Senator Larry Craig story was deposited on his doorstep. The Craig story and his alleged gayness cried out to be written about.
I have not written an essay since May. Two hospitalizations during the summer and a lack of subjects tended to prevent me from unlimbering the dictaphone. But the Craig story is a different breed of cat that needs to be commented upon.
For those of you who do not follow the newspapers, you must now know that Senator Larry Craig, the senior senator from Idaho, was arrested in a men’s restroom in Minneapolis for propositioning an undercover cop.
The object of the proposition was to engage in homosexual acts. For six weeks after Senator Craig was arrested, he pondered the charges and eventually signed a confession which appears to deny him all appeals. Nonetheless, now Senator Craig has engaged a high-powered legal team in Washington in the hope that he can overturn the confession and, secondly, restore his good name. According to experts, the chances of these two things happening are remote indeed. Senator Craig has served 27 years in Washington and during that time he has opposed every proposition that would grant the gays anything resembling equal rights. He has opposed same-sex marriage just as he has opposed civil unions. He wishes to bar the military services from having homosexual members, even though some of them speak Arabic, which is indeed a rare skill. In short, Larry Craig is a terror when it comes to homosexual relations. At the same time, it appears that Larry Craig is indeed a gay person.
The undercover cop who arrested Senator Craig had the wit to record the conversation which followed Craig’s arrest. The senator claims, for example, that he has a wide stance which causes him to push his shoe into the next stall, which he contends is not really a signal. When he was asked about signaling with his hand, his reply was that he was searching for a piece of toilet paper that he had dropped on the floor. In short, Senator Craig’s answers were unconvincing and he voluntarily signed a confession to a misdemeanor charge.
Now a program note. In cases such as this, it is not my penchant to pile on. But when a man is down, I cannot find it in my heart to kick him. In spite of the hypocrisy which accompanied the votes that Senator Craig made on the Senate floor, I understand that he is fighting for his job. It would have been much more simple for Senator Craig to concede that he is a gay person. But of course, that is probably a sure way to defeat in the great state of Idaho. Nonetheless, we have a man here who is living a lie and who has done so for the 27 years of his Congressional career.
In New Jersey, our recent governor was James E. McGreevey. McGreevey put his gay lover on the state payroll and in the end was forced to resign his job and concede that he was “a gay American.” The recent reports are to the effect that he is living with his male lover. Over the Labor Day weekend it was reported that McGreevey had joined a seminary. I suppose that in time McGreevey may become a pastor and then a bishop. In what church remains unknown.
The unalterable fact is that Senator Larry Craig is a hypocrite because he has voted against every measure that would offer some sort of protection to people who are homosexuals. But I suppose it comes as no news to all of you in this readership that politicians are hypocrites. If hypocrites were suddenly removed from the chambers of the United States government, legislative affairs would grind to a halt.
What I am urging in this essay is a simple understanding that gay people are no different from the rest of us. They have their hopes and ideals and they strive for success in the fields of their choice. During my long career in labor relations, the union insisted that coming to company headquarters prejudiced their positions. So they suggested that we meet at a hotel in Greenwich Village. I suppose that you all know that Greenwich Village is the heart of gayness in New York City. It was during this period in time that I came to know and admire many people who were homosexual. They were artists, some were singers, and many of them were great cooks. Many became friends.
There are Christians who believe that God made us all in his image. They also believe that homosexuality is a sinful condition. Therefore, it would seem to me that when a Christian scorns a gay person, he must concede that God made a mistake. And he must contend that gays choose that lifestyle rather than a straight way of life. I strongly object.
Gays have been with us since the beginning of time. And I suspect that homosexuality will be with us for the rest of eternity. It seems to me that there is no percentage at all in scorning gay people. In my view, people have very little to say about their sexuality. They are either straight or gay, or a combination thereof. Some people are born to use their left hand, while others are right-handed. Some are bald and some are, like John Kerry, with a full head of hair. Does this mean that we should scorn the left-handers or that we should run the bald people out of town? I don’t believe so.
Those of you who have known me over the years know that my politics are quite liberal. In the Larry Craig debate, I heard a commentator say that people who hold liberal views are very likely to become gay people. I thought that comment was worthy of note.
In the final analysis we are all here trying to get from one day to the next. I can’t find it in my heart to scorn gay people any more than I could scorn left-handed people. And that also goes for Larry Craig. His is a sad, sad case. If he admits gayness, he will lose his job. But in the long run, Craig must know of his gayness and must concede it. I know Craig is a first-class hypocrite, but I can’t find it in my heart to scorn him simply because of his gayness. For being a hypocrite, absolutely. For being gay, I will give him a pass.
The title of this essay is borrowed from a Phil Coulter song about autistic children called “Scorn Not Their Simplicity.” Scorn is a powerful instrument of oppression and should be used very carefully. If someone wishes to scorn Larry Craig for being a hypocrite, he has my full endorsement. But to scorn Senator Craig because he is gay, that is another matter, and scorn is entirely inappropriate.
E. E. CARR
September 10, 2007
Essay 260
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: If you took all the hypocrites out of the legislature, it may indeed come to a standstill. However it’s kinda at one of those anyway, so maybe such a removal could be considered a cost-saving measure.
Finally I would add that we should all pity Mr. Craig. I don’t know what’s going on with his body that taking a poop requires him to take such a powerful and wide stance to get everything moving, but I’m sure such a condition can’t be pleasant. Maybe making hand gestures under the stall helps somehow.