After Roll Call broke the story on Monday that Republican anti-gay Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho had pled guilty to misdemeanor lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport men's room, leading conservatives were quick to throw him overboard.
At townhall.com, Hugh Hewitt rejected Craig's denials and called for his immediate resignation. "I realize," Hewitt said, "that I did not say this about Senator [David] Vitter [R-La., who apologized in July for 'a very serious sin in my past' after his telephone number appeared on the client list of the so-called 'D.C. Madam'], but Craig's behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required." On Tuesday morning, the group bloggers at National Review Online (NRO) were quick with the wisecracks. John Podhoretz said, "Couldn't Craig just have called an escort service? Oh ... wait ...." Jonah Goldberg made fun of Craig's spokesman for describing the men's room arrest as a "he said/he said misunderstanding," and suggested alternate denials like, "This is all a terrible misunderstanding. The Senator is a bus station man."
Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, used the occasion as a teaching moment. After slamming Craig's hypocrisy, he said, "There is sad irony that a United States senator from Idaho has been caught up in the same kind of thing that destroyed the lives of dozens of men in Boise in the 1950s, so tragically chronicled in 'Boys of Boise.'"
What strikes me as I watch Craig's denials is the depth of his self-deception, which apparently goes back at least to 1982 when he served in the House of Representatives. That year, he proposed to the then-Suzanne Scott six months after he responded to a scandal by publicly denying having had sex with congressional pages. Craig's arrest in June of this year, just eight months after denying gay sex charges by Mike Rogers of blogactive.com, suggests a recklessness all too familiar in the closeted and powerful.
A classic consequence of self-repression is that one's underlying nature, being unchanged, inevitably bursts out in inappropriate ways. It is no surprise that Craig would resort to sleazy restroom sex, since he is unwilling to see homosexuality in a more favorable light. As Matt Foreman observes, this is pathetic. It reminds me of Pinocchio, the wooden puppet who believes that if he prays hard enough, the Blue Fairy will make him into a real boy. Craig's own denials hint at the fairy-tale connection: twice during a contentious interview with the Idaho Statesman, he exclaimed, "Jiminy!"
Fate stepped in, as Jiminy Cricket would say, but not in the way Sen. Craig might have wished. On Aug. 27, the same day that Craig was definitively outed, another kind of conservative - prominent Washington pundit Andrew Sullivan - married his partner Aaron Tone in Provincetown. Here we have a nice juxtaposition: On one hand, a man who has consistently opposed any legal protections for gay citizens even as he engaged in furtive gay sex in restrooms. On the other hand, a self-affirming gay man who has advocated marriage equality for nearly two decades. The gods have a fine sense of irony.
We are witnessing a cultural shift: Henceforth, the Washington establishment will have in its midst a living exemplar of same-sex marriage, which just by refusing to hide will be a continual rebuke of the slander that only straight people are family. It is precisely because the public institution of marriage confers respectability and makes our relationships harder to dismiss that homophobes have sought so strenuously to cut gay couples out of the Constitution.
To be sure, cultural change does not automatically translate into victory at the polls. The latter, as Congressman Barney Frank likes to remind us, requires organizing and persuading and getting out the vote. There are still millions of Americans who would prefer that their gay children suppress their desires and choose an opposite-sex spouse. People in denial like Craig are surrounded by enablers. We may be at a turning point, but our struggle is far from over.
On another off note, this week's famous groom has made his share of enemies. But the attacks against him from left and right have been going on for years, and Andrew Sullivan is still standing. A quick search of the blogs this week turns up catty comments, salacious rumors, and entries like "Did you see the pic Aaron painted of Andrew's bottom?" I personally prefer the picture Andrew himself posted of the handsome, bearded Aaron asleep on a sofa with their two beagles.
The glare of the spotlight can be hard on any relationship, and even the most obscure of marriages can fail (though I happily note that the divorce rate is lower in Massachusetts than in the Bible Belt). Failure is a risk that we take whenever we set sail. Of course, Andrew would have to work overtime to catch up with the multiple marriages of various anti-gay politicians. All that really matters is that he and Aaron have taken the leap together.
A real marriage is not a Disney fantasy. We are not carried along by fate. We are responsible people capable of summoning forgiveness and generosity and humility to overcome our baser instincts. Like any worthy enterprise, a marriage takes devoted effort. So here's wishing Andrew and Aaron perseverance and grace to help them through the inevitable rough spots.
As for Larry Craig, whose career lies in ruins: Notwithstanding his contemptible coupling of squalid gay encounters with opposition to gay rights, he is more pitiful than anything else. In the end, the greatest victim of his lies is himself.
24 Comments for “The Poltroon and the Groom”
posted by Richard Jasper on
I hadn’t realized Andrew and Aaron were married the same day that Craig was outed. That’s irony, indeed!
I’m a gay man who came out at age 35 after 11 years of marriage and 2 kids. I did so of my own volition, realizing that only by being true to myself could I be a true father to my children and a true friend to their mother.
Since then I’ve chatted informally (both in person and online) with hundreds of other gay men in the situation I was in and I always tell them: Don’t assume that you will never be outed, don’t assume that you have control over that–wouldn’t it be better to take that step yourself?
So I feel for Senator Craig but I’m not sorry he was outed. He has built a career on demonizing gay people and now he’s paying the price for his hypocrisy. What really sends me, though, is that his GOP colleagues get all high and might about Craig’s perceived misdeeds and then actually give a scumbag like David Vitter a round of applause.
We’re not there yet, obviously, and some days I think we never will be. Andrew and Aaron remind me of how far we have come. Larry Craig reminds me of how far we have left to go.
All the best…
Richard Jasper
East Amherst, NY
posted by John on
As a proud, openly gay man, I do agree with your assment, but I do have to step back about Andrew Sullivan–he got in trouble and exposed in his own way. It was not illegal or wrong, but he got in trouble in ways the average gay person does not.
Also, does anyone think Sullivan’s marriage is real? Is it up there with any straight marriage? No, as a gay man, I feel a fraud aspect to it. And let’s be honest–does anyone who attends the wedding think it is real? No, it is a farce. Anyone who denies it is lying to themselves.
posted by BobN on
I suspect Andrew and Aaron think, correction, KNOW it’s real.
posted by Brian Miller on
does anyone think Sullivan’s marriage is real? Is it up there with any straight marriage? No, as a gay man, I feel a fraud aspect to it.
It must be painful to be so emotionally damaged.
posted by BobN on
Upon further reflection, I think John might be onto something. Maybe Andrew and Aaron are marrying for the sake of the beagles…
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
John, the so-called trouble that Andrew got into was manufactured by his enemies, who took a quote from one of his books out of context to reverse its meaning and portray Andrew (absurdly to those of us who have actually read his work) as homophobic. That slander persists because a lie, once posted to the Internet, takes on a life of its own among people who don’t fact-check. In the online personal ad that was exposed several years ago as being from Andrew, he was a single man who was being honest about his HIV status. I fail to see the legitimate scandal in any of that, except for the scandal of how unfairly Andrew was treated. He of course has a knack for pissing people off because he is outspoken and “thinks out loud” on sometimes provocative ways. Fortunately for him, he has developed the armor plating necessary to withstand the slings and arrows that come his way. I think he has grown as a writer over the years, and his book that came out last year (which I reviewed) was quite good. He is a conservative while I am either a centrist or an old-fashioned liberal depending on how you categorize things, but I have a lot of respect for him. And I wish the Andrew-haters would move on already. But in any case, they failed to destroy him, and that may be what makes them angriest.
I see no reason to question the legitimacy of Andrew’s and Aaron’s marriage. Andrew has pretty much bared his soul in print on the subject.
posted by Brian Miller on
the so-called trouble that Andrew got into was manufactured by his enemies
I suspect the trouble being referenced wasn’t a misquote, but rather Mr. Sullivan’s regrettable “Bareback City” profile of several years back.
Given that Sullivan had written quite a bit about monogamy in the gay community being the ideal — and had been hugely critical of Clinton’s infidelity at the same time — the idea that he’d likely been cruising for bareback anonymous sex on the Internet as an HIV+ man was indeed disturbing.
However, that was many years ago and the activists who attacked him for that, as usual, often engaged in the very activity they themselves decried in Andrew.
I think he’s changed since then. And I believe his marriage is genuine and something to be celebrated.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian, I made a reference to that “bareback” incident, though I didn’t use that word. As I recall, Andrew was single, and he disclosed his HIV status.
posted by oddjob on
I always tell them: Don’t assume that you will never be outed, don’t assume that you have control over that–wouldn’t it be better to take that step yourself?
Several years ago I realized – that which you keep secret is that which you give permission to have power over you.
A wise person therefore chooses very carefully when deciding what is to be kept secret!
posted by Amicus on
a living exemplar of same-sex marriage
———-
Here’s another perspective:
Let’s not politicize A & A ‘s marriage for our own purposes.
True, AS is in the public view, but let’s not make them into some 1950s version of the perfect couple. My god, what a horrible “standard” to have to live up to.
Let their marriage have the space for its own spirituality and dynamic. Which is just to say, let’s not appropriate it for beltway “display” purposes.
On the catty comments and the rest:
True or false: today (and in the past), to be gay and to say something politically is to eventually to have your entire sexual history made public.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Amicus, Andrew is one of the nation’s leading proponents of same-sex marriage, and has written about his own marriage on his well-known blog. The act of embracing the public institution of marriage, much less publicizing it, is inherently political. As to appropriating that marriage, if anyone has done that it is Andrew himself. I am merely applauding him and wishing him and Aaron well. Not only have I not held them up as some sort of ideal standard, I suggested that they will have their rough spots like any other couples, and wished them the perseverance and grace to help them through it. Contrasting them favorably with Larry Craig was not exactly setting a high bar.
posted by Amicus on
hey, no problem. I didn’t mean to nitpick you or chastise. I just suspect there might be a general tendency that could develop and wanted to offer another perspective.
My goal is formal religious and civic relationship recognition. While advocacy for this undoubtedly involves others having a look at individual gay and lesbian couples, I broadly take that goal to transcend whether anyone has a ‘good’ marriage or a ‘bad’ one, whether some pairing might be judged first among equals on some subjective or social scoring or not.
I’ll go a step further.
I doubt if he will do it, but even if A & A intend to make a public ‘exemplar’ of their relationship, beyond simple visibility (as Bob Paris and Rod Jackson did, mostly), then I’d resist his doing it, rather than piggyback it. That’s all. Hopefully, that seems neither selfish nor critical, just a politically astute way to go about relating to it, for all parties.
posted by Brian Miller on
I made a reference to that “bareback” incident, though I didn’t use that word. As I recall, Andrew was single, and he disclosed his HIV status.
You didn’t make a reference so much as an oblique nod.
Andrew may have been single, and he may have disclosed his status, but there’s no denying that his actions as an individual went sharply against the standards he was holding others to.
That’s not to excuse Signorile’s behavior in the fight, by the way. It was embarrassing for all involved.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I suspect that the main cause of that kerfuffle all those years ago was that Andrew, like the Clintons, has a gift for infuriating people. It’s a different group of people being infuriated, but in both cases they tend to go overboard.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Amicus, Andrew generally tends to be rather private about his relationship, even accounting for the confessional nature of blogs. And as far as I am aware, he never posted Aaron’s last name. I got that from other news reports.
posted by Amicus on
Be it resolved that we should try to institutionalize support for marriage – and rights, generally – as much as possible, rather than try to turn individual people into institutions themselves.
There is probably plenty of reason to be critical of current institutions. But, it’s arguable that the mark of a mature political movement is institutions that can competently marshal a variety of expertise from all over the community in a time-pressured and concerted fashion. This is to be distinguished from a … gaggle of voices, to short hand it.
There is never going to be perfect followership. Even profoundly inspirational leaders like MLK never mustered all that.
But, if we don’t hang together, there is a risk that we will hang separately, whether it is by our own catty hands or by others.
Nevermind AS, Here is an attack on Glen Greenwald that caught my eye, for a number of reasons:
from townhall.com
link
Wednesday, August, 29, 2007 2:16 PM
“why not turn the lens around
and start investigating the self-appointed investigators? Mike Rogers and Glen Greenwald might not be toe-tapping wide stancers themselves but, like anyone, I doubt their lives would stand up as models of perfection under close scrutiny.
Guys like that are the hypocrites here – to hold someone to a standard of moral perfection is the height of hypocrisy. They are the onews who want to conflate “correct” political views with a “correct” moral stance. Ultimately, Greenwald is a two bit Stalinist. Let loose the hounds and tear him down. See how he likes it.”
To be sure, this is just one wandering individual who has confused pointing out hypocrisy with hypocrisy, but what’s remarkable, to me, is the ease with finding out whether Glen ever did anything a little bit racey in his lifetime.
Maybe there is a no double-standard there, but I don’t think such an ‘attack’ on Glen would be made if Barnett’s hypocrisy over Craig had centered around non-gay sexual activity that didn’t involve abuse of office.
And, if I’m correct, it just means that homophobia is still so rife and entrenched that folks are unwilling to surrender their hypocrisy by acknowledgment of it to a gay man. Which just bolsters the case that these intransigents ought to increasingly answer to institutions and not individuals, as much as is practicable and possible.
posted by Brian Miller on
the main cause of that kerfuffle all those years ago was that Andrew, like the Clintons, has a gift for infuriating people
Perhaps. Moreso, I suspect it was based on the ideological tension at play. I’d expect a similar expose if it came to light, for instance, that I was a government employee who was accepting tens of thousands of dollars a year in welfare payments for my health care expenses — while simultaneously denouncing the welfare state.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
But I think the claim that Andrew was doing one thing while preaching another was not based on a fair reading of his work. He does, however, do a lot of “thinking out loud” on his blog, which can be a bit risky. The main problem is that people who already hated him were not so much reading his work for understanding but mining it for things they could hold against him, even if they had to take the comments out of context to do it.
posted by tjmmz9843 on
Wrong to describe Andrew Sullivan as a conservative. It is Sullivan’s self-identification but real conservatives – including real GAY conservatives – won’t have him. You could put it this way. Sullivan is “conservative” or “not liberal”, in the same ways Craig is “straight” or “not gay”.
posted by Brian Miller on
real conservatives – including real GAY conservatives – won’t have him
Which is one reason why the “conservative movement” in the United States is in a death spiral (along with the “liberal movement”). Both require — nay, demand — absolute conformity to their viewpoints on every single issue.
Step out of line by happening to be gay, for instance, and you’re no longer a True Believer ™ — instead, you’re Hurting THe Movement (r).
posted by tjmmz9843 on
Whatever. I only report the facts. Every group has people with one view trying to change others or call them phony. Even libertarians, my group.
posted by walt on
Andrew Sullivan bloviates endlessly about conservatism because there’s no thumbnail summation to describe it. Every attempt produces an asterisk where the exceptions are spun out and acknowledged. In this forum, it’s easy to see what passes for “conservatism”: a reduced public square and its maintenance.
Sullivan did himself a great service by admitting that the current brand of conservatism is toxic. But he has yet to tackle the fundamental problems with a “philosophy” where tactics substitute for principles. None of you on the right want to go there because, finally, there’s nothing to go to. Either America functions or it doesn’t. But if your philosophy is only a technocratic quibble about how much government we need, the ruling idea is more like a bumper sticker on a junker.
posted by Brian Miller on
Every group has people with one view trying to change others
Not every group tries to use force or fraud to do so, though.
posted by Brian Miller on
In this forum, it’s easy to see what passes for “conservatism”: a reduced public square and its maintenance.
Actually, bigger government doesn’t equal an “increased public square.” George W. Bush has dramatically increased the size and scope of government, yet also made the public square dramatically smaller.
Democrats would do the same thing, just in different areas.
The free market of ideas, not government, makes the public square function and function inclusively.