Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Three Oranges on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Paul Robichaux on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • JR on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Jan on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Mark on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

The Larry Craig Affair

posted by Peter Smith

When Dan Solove inivted me to serve as a guest blogger several months ago, I was a bit concerned that I would have nothing to blog about. Fortunately, the Larry Craig Affair (pun only partially intended) took care of that problem. My initial response to the Affair was to feel unrestrained glee about the fact that another hypocrite had been exposed. Craig, after all, supported both the Federal Marriage Amendment and a similar state-law effort in Idaho. He also apparently had refused to pledge not to discriminate against gays in hiring staff for his office. Like many others, I looked forward to days of awkwardness for Senator Craig and for the Republican Party generally. But I must confess that after the initial glow wore off, I began to find the Affair — and particularly the nature of the charges — troubling.


Craig was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and invasion of privacy. (The arrest report was titled “Lewd Conduct.”) The invasion of privacy charge apparently was based on the arresting officer’s allegation that Craig had stood outside his stall for several minutes, peering through the crack in the door. It is not difficult to understand the basis for that charge. In contrast, the disorderly conduct charge — the only charge to which he ultimately pleaded guilty — apparently was based on Craig’s actions while in the stall, when he allegedly tapped his foot, both on his side and the officer’s side of the stall divider, and then reached his hand underneath to the officer’s side. Friends who are gay have told me that these actions unambiguously were invitations to sex.

There is little doubt that a state or municipality can criminalize sexual activity in public places. If Craig’s invitation — perhaps to someone other than an undercover police officer — had been accepted, and they had engaged in sex in the public restroom at the airport, then Craig clearly could have been arrested and charged with disorderly conduct or public lewdness. But the “lewd conduct” with which Craig was charged was the mere invitation to consensual sex, with no explicit indication of where the sex — if the invitation had been accepted — would occur. If we assume for a moment that Craig intended not only to solicit sex, but also to engage in sex in the public bathroom, then perhaps it is permissible to charge him with something akin to an attempt to engage in disorderly conduct or public lewdness. Although charges under circumstances such as Craig’s are hardly unusual, this strikes me as a philosophically weak basis for criminal sanctions.

But that doesn’t really get to the core of my discomfort. Indeed, let’s assume further that the circumstances alleged in the complaint are sufficient for a charge of actual, as opposed to merely attempted, public lewdness or disorderly conduct. What is most troubling, I think, is that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that these charges are filed disproportionately, even if not exclusively, against gay people. If a man at the Minneapolis Airport had approached a woman he had never met before, told her that he found her attractive, and asked her — not explicitly, to make the analogy hold, but instead with the sorts of signals and oblique cues that people have been known to use — if she would like to have sex, it seems unlikely that he would have been arrested for lewd or disorderly conduct. To be sure, there may be some basis for such a charge, particularly if the manner of the request were sufficiently threatening, or even just really creepy. But charges would seem even less likely if in our analogy we have the woman invite the man to have sex. In that case, a charge of public lewdness or disorderly conduct seems highly unlikely to follow — even if the person propositioned were himself an undercover police officer. In all likelihood, Craig’s actions seemed lewd to the arresting officer because they were an invitation to gay sex.

Indeed, I think it is telling that when these stories hit the news, they are disproportionately about charges of homosexual “lewd” conduct. In fairness, perhaps there is something about the setting of the Craig Affair — a public men’s room — that makes it different from my proposed analogy; indeed, it is a setting for which, due to the single-sex nature of public bathrooms, we cannot create a satisfying hetersexual analogue. And, of course, a man who propositioned an undercover female police officer to have sex in a unisex bathroom might be arrested, as well. Perhaps, but those circumstances are sufficiently implausible — because of the lack of unisex bathrooms, not the efforts of hetersexual men — that they do not reveal very much about how these laws are actually enforced. In any event, I think the result in the Craig Affair probably would have been the same if Craig had propositioned the officer right outside, or even somehwere near the entrance to, the public restroom.

I am not a libertarian, and I am not particularly troubled by criminalizing sex in public places, or even by criminalizing the soliciting of sex in circumstances that are objectively threatening, shocking, or even offensive to the person propositioned. But the Craig Affair suggests, I think, that we still tend to treat gay relationships differently than we do heterosexual relationships. Of course, if Larry Craig — with his demonstrated hostility to gay rights — were to raise such a claim, I would have little sympathy. But that does not mean that he wouldn’t have a point.


 September 4, 2007 at 10:25 am   Posted in: Blogging   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (5)

  1. nedu - September 4, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    But the Craig Affair suggests, I think, that we still tend to treat gay relationships differently than we do heterosexual relationships.

    So does the Office of Personnel Management’s “Issue Characterization Chart”, also known as the federal employment “Suitability Matrix”. See (on p.9 in PDF) under 11. Loyalty and Security:

    • Homosexuality, in and of itself, while not a suitability issue, may be a security issue and must be addressed completely, when indications are present of possible susceptibility to coercion or blackmail.

    Note that Senator Craig’s budgetary and oversight responsibities included, among other things, programs at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory. Further note, that in announcing his intent to resign, Senator Craig stated, “[C]learly my name is important to me”.

    Clearly, someone who initiates a clandestine encounter in an airport men’s room —and then makes an incredible public denial— should not be in a position to compromise our national security.

  2. DeeJay - September 4, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Is there any doubt that the good Senator would have also been arrested had he tried some clandestine hook-up in the woman’s rest room?

  3. Anthony - September 4, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    “My initial response to the Affair was to feel unrestrained glee about the fact that another hypocrite had been exposed. Craig, after all, supported both the Federal Marriage Amendment and a similar state-law effort in Idaho. He also apparently had refused to pledge not to discriminate against gays in hiring staff for his office.”

    Assuming that Senator Craig is a deeply closeted gay man, how does his homosexuality make him a hypocrite regarding those particular issues? It’s not that difficult at all to reconcile being gay and being opposed to gay marriage, or being opposed to extending employment discrimination laws to gays. Saying that Craig is somehow required to support goals of the gay rights movement because he is gay is no different than arguing that women are obligated to support abortion, blacks are obligated to support affirmative action, immigrants are obligated to support amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc.

  4. Hypocritical Oaf - September 5, 2007 at 10:15 am

    I’m with anything on this point. Would Peter argue that the rich are somehow duty-bound to oppose progressive taxation and high tax rates? Or that the poor are duty-bound to support them?

    Must smokers never support no-smoking zones?

    Must Al Gore and John Edwards — both substantial polluters — never support environmental reform?

    Hypocrisy is a fairly worthless “argument.” It tends to be what people point to when they don’t care to make a substantive argument for or against a policy. That Peter’s “initial response to the Affair was to feel unrestrained glee about the fact that another hypocrite had been exposed” makes me wonder how serious he really is on such subjects.

    Besides, the “hypocrisy” argument fails by its own logic. Each has been hypocritical at some point in our lives. Thus, under Peter’s logic, none of us should ever criticize hypocrisy — after all, such criticism would only make us hypocrites on the subject of hypocrisy!

  5. Hypocritical Oaf - September 5, 2007 at 2:28 pm

    Whoops. “I’m with Anthony …”

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress