[Vision2020] Craig's official statement

[Joe Campbell]

Kai,

My criticism of Craig is that he's a hypocrite, not that he's gay. Like you, I 
don't care what he does in his own bedroom -- although having sex in a 
men's restroom can hardly be classified as private act! Still, it is his NOT his 
sexual orientation that bugs me.

This is why Roger’s comparison with Clinton is faulty. I think that both Clinton and 
Craig were wrong because they had extramarital affairs and both of them broke the law, 
though in Clinton's case it had to do with testifying falsely under oath not the particular 
act he committed (at least I don't think that extra-marital affairs per se are illegal). That is 
where the comparison ends! In order for the analogy to be a good one, it would have had 
to have been the case that Clinton had a record of voting in favor of legislation that 
prohibited against having sex with big-haired women! Say what you want about Clinton's 
romp: It did not reveal him as a hypocrite. None of us learned something new that was 
contrary to the public, political image that he was presenting.

I disagree with you that "If the majority stands in opposition to legislation the 
representative is in favor of, it is the duty of the representative to heed the will of his/her 
electorate ..." In fact, I find it hard to believe that you believe this. If it turns out that the 
majority of the people who voted for Bush wanted him to leave Iraq immediately would 
that be a reason for doing so? No. Perhaps we should leave Iraq but not for that reason.

Part of the role of an elected official is to lead and it is important for a leader to make the 
right decision, not just the popular one. I think that Craig's voting record, and the fact that 
he was not vocally against Idaho’s anti-gay marriage amendment, show a history of 
discrimination against gays (or in the latter case a tolerance for such discrimination). His 
recent guilty plea makes a prima facie case that he is a member of the very group that he 
discriminated against. The fact that he is a lawmaker who has no problem telling other 
gays what they can and can’t do yet sees no obligation to follow the law himself also 
reveals him as a hypocrite.

Gary tried to suggest that there was no reason to think that Craig was a hypocrite. But his 
argument rested on the assumption that what Craig was against was, as Gary put it, the 
"pro special rights agenda." But can someone tell me why it is that the right to marry the 
adult person of your choice is a “special right”? It doesn’t seem special at all. The fact is 
that you and I and Gary have the right to marry the adult person of our choice and many 
gays and lesbians do not. That is discriminatory, pure and simple. And again this is where 
the comparison with the case of polygamy is faulty. NO ONE has the right to marry more 
than one person. It isn’t a case where one group gets to do something that another group 
cannot do.

Best, Joe


Kai wrote:

Sue, 
My apologies, from what I've seen on the list, the issue has been "Is he or 
isn't he" and he's a hypocrite if he's gay/bi for standing against legislation 
most of his constituents also disagree with. (Moscow's political demographic 
does not represent the majority of Idaho, and as an avowed independent I believe 
I stand in an even smaller minority than the "blues".) 
It is the duty of our elected officials to represent the people who elected 
them. If the majority stands in opposition to legislation the representative is 
in favor of, it is the duty of the representative to heed the will of his/her 
electorate and vote as his/her constituents wish. 
Not that this happens much anymore, but just a thought of how things are 
supposed to work. 
The sad truth is that most of our elected officials are corrupt, the ideals our 
founders strived for have been forgotten, ignored or tossed aside.