I guess the operative strategy is to try to appeal the gayness out of himself.

He'll keep appealing until he gets a judge to rule, 'Not Gay'

Can we say his appeal process has "stalled"?

Or should I say he feels that this ruling, in the immortal words of B. J. Simpson, "both sucks AND blows"?

A guilty plea is insufficient evidence for conviction?

That's a novel approach.

He's not gay, he's never been gay, he loves his wife. You're lucky he hangs out at the airport at all! Can't you bastards leave him alone? (sob, sniff)

Steve, it's actually not a terrible First Amendment argument. It's generally not a crime to inquire about sex in a public (or private) place -- see, e.g., bars. In that case, it's typically a public *heterosexual* inquiry into sex.

There's no indication that Craig wanted to *pay* for his gay sex, in which case this "public solicitation" crime looks more and more like the criminalization of homosexuality.

Anyhow, I do loathe Craig and am happy to see him out of the Senate, but it's not like his First Amendment argument is completely crazy. Statutes like Minnesota's have a number of constitutional problems frankly.

I don't think it needs to be read as "criminalization of homosexuality" when the state says "Don't harass someone trying to take a dump in peace."

As much as I dislike Craig, I have to say that my first reaction is that I agree with him. Are we seriously at a place where a man can be arrested and fined for tapping his foot and having a wide stance? My disgust at this arbitrary and intrusive law completely outweighs any schadenfreude I'd like to feel.

What's next, laws against suggestive walks? The Wink Police? Fuck that.

Mahnkenstein -- your characterization sounds like a "disturbing the peace"-type prosecution, and such a theory/crime would be valid. My memory is that such a crime was *not* what Craig was charged with. Craig's alleged crime specifically pertained to sex and solicitation.

I think the key element is location and behaviour. Walking up to someone on the street and saying 'hey, wanna knock boots?' is one thing. Approaching someone who has their pants down and is sitting in a locked booth is something else. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a toilet, certainly a reasonable expectation that you won't be solicited for sex in an airport. If this was re bathroom of a bar, I would feel differently.

Larry Craig was hoping to get back his lost Senate seat. It's okay for Idaho law enforcement to practice real entrapment and to be completely corrupt, but don't take away a carrier politician's job... That's just going too far.
Wouldn't it be great if there were a video of Larry Craig slapping down his Senator business card and asking "What do you think about that?". A youtube hit forever.

Idaho doesn't just have big potatos! Idaho: because that happened in an airport restroom in Minnesota? Where the Hell is the huge public outrage like what got Prop 8 passed in California and other statae measures?! Apparently, if you're an Idaho Senator you can not only be gay, but you can cheat on your spouse by engaging in anonymous sex in airport restrooms and your constituents don't care! That is what is fundamentally fucked up right there. Fuck you Idaho!

I think the key element is location and behaviour. Walking up to someone on the street and saying 'hey, wanna knock boots?' is one thing. Approaching someone who has their pants down and is sitting in a locked booth is something else. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a toilet, certainly a reasonable expectation that you won't be solicited for sex in an airport. If this was re bathroom of a bar, I would feel differently.

Similarly in, say, a gym locker room. If you're naked in the shower at a public (or at least private membership) gym you'd have a reasonable expectation that you won't be solicited for sex, whereas if the same person solicited you outside the gym on the street while you were both clothed you wouldn't have the same expectation of being left in peace.

A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected the Republican's bid to toss out his disorderly conduct conviction.

So can we say that Craig has lost his sex appeal....?

as a public servant sworn to uphold the laws; Larry
should have alerted FBI that Minn. police were shaking people down as he claimed and yet he plead guilty so it would go away. Leaving the corrupt cops to harass others. So Larry, if you were innocent it was almost worst that you ducked and ran, ignoring your duty to serve the people and uphold the laws of the land.

Unfortunately, any weakening of the press against Craig will be interpreted by he and his attorney as vindication. I couldn't care less if he gets Gay Forever magazine delivered to his office, but there's no way he's going to use this to pretend he isn't gay - or at the very least, turned on by the idea of illicit gay sex. Bear in mind that this is not the first time such suspicion has focused on him. I don't think it's a major crime either, although it would likely be annoying for somebody who was using the bathroom for its actual purpose and not waiting to be hit up for sex. But I lost all sympathy for Craig as soon as he tried to pretend it was just everyone else's overactive dirty imagination.

[...] Craig's attorneys argued that the senator's foot tapping in the stall should be protected as free speech under the First Amendment. -- Steve Benen

How do you say "wanna fuck?" in Morse code?

your characterization sounds like a "disturbing the peace"-type prosecution, and such a theory/crime would be valid.

"Disorderly conduct" (what Craig was charged with, pled guilty to, and was convicted of) is a lot like "disturbing the peace".

The problem is the GOP has the holier-than-thou attitude. It wouldn't be a big issue if the GOP would stop this so-called christian value agenda.

They always say, they are anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-abortion, anti-adultery.

And as far as having a wide stance while using the bathroom - gee, what is he now, a cowboy?

so gays have no first amendment rights to yell "I Do" in a crowded room, but Larry pleads the 1st for his shenannigans?

America.

Fair enough cmdicely, touche.

You're correct about the specific criminal statute at issue; it was disorderly conduct. http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa071949-1209.pdf

But also, as you can see from that Opinion, the ACLU and the ACLU of Minnesota filed amicus briefs on the constitutionality issue, arguing that the statute, as applied to in this case to a gay sex sting, was unconstitutional. That was the crux of my point in response to Steven's dismissal or Craig's 1st Amendment claim -- his argument wasn't completely crazy; indeed, the ACLU (a group I suspect Steven generally finds reasonably credible/persuasive re: constitutional issues) made the same argument.

people think gov should investigate people in Republic involving the Sex String

exlibra asked:
How do you say "wanna fuck?" in Morse code?

A: If you can't tap dance quickly, paste the text here, click "play".

Larry Craig, performance artist. LOL.

Gave new meaning to never leave a paper trail.