I have been waiting to have something different to say about Larry Craig. It has been a while since his unseemly fall, and much has been made of it by the leftists-- especially those who woulda been his bestest buddies if they'd gone for a pre-flight nose-powdering at the right place and time. I have no idea what Larry’s real predilections are. Maybe he is and does, maybe he isn’t and just taps to tunes in his head. I’m going to assume that he is because Occam’s Razor say so. But there is something we can say for LC that can't be said for John Edwards or Al Gore. He is NOT a hypocrite. At least not ipso facto as regards the assertion by the Defenders of the Flaming that since he, Larry, is gay in his private sphere (or at least in its traveling component), it is hypocritical for him to have opposed so-called "gay rights" in the public policy sphere.

Of course, like so many socialist diagrams, those dots don't connect if you think at all. If you are gay, the equation goes, then you must embrace the Gay Agenda as defined by the Official Gay Handbook. So, sexual orientation isn't private or personal after all. It's a political ideology that comes with binding rules and regulations. Like being black and pro-affirmative action, or Hispanic and pro-illegal immigration, or pre-pubescent and pro-Obama. The problem with this, ironically, is that despite assumptions to the contrary by liberals some blacks, Hispanics, teenie boppers and gays are just as smart as anyone else is. Smart enough to know that rights aren’t things you make up as you go along. E.g., there is a “right” to marry any-old-body you want to. Smart enough to know that just because you are not sparkly happy, it does not mean that any right of yours is being violated. Smart enough to know that some policies are important and best for a society’s functioning, even if you personally would be happier if some of those those norms and notions promoted were different or absent, or if you lived in a different society. Which of course, you are welcome to do. We are told that we should vote for gay political leaders anyway, because being sexual orientation doesn't matter. It's a private thing. Well, if Larry is an automatic hypocrite, then apparently that claim is a lie. It does in fact matter that a politician is gay. It determines his or her policy views regarding social issues.

So, here is the real clincher—some gay people have traditional morals. Yes it is true—their sexual “preference” has not overridden or erased their own sense of right and wrong which says, “Just cuz I’m an XYZ, does not mean that being an XYZ is a good thing”. Many people—the majority of people by all evidence we have-- think that there is a moral problem with being homosexual or at least with living a homosexual "alternative" lifestyle. It makes no difference whether or not there is in "fact" such a moral dilemma; morals don't work that way. They are subjective.And being homosexual does not automatically make anyone subscribe to a particular or deviant moral code. In fact, it is perfectly consistent and painfully honest to say that being an XYZ is not a good thing and if I cannot help being one then I need to deal with it without being an anti-social arse who demands decency laws be voided because I like to be Otherwise. Not only is it consistent and unhypocritcal if Larry is honestly opposed to parts of the gay wishlist, it might be downright self-sacrificing. Like admitting you are a self-centered bastard, but not such a self-centered bastard that you think people like you should be allowed to adopt children.

Now the point here is not to heroize Larry. There is no reason to assume any reasons for his hiding his inclination. Maybe he was a coward who couldn't face himself so lived in semi-denial (not that denied, evidently). But maybe there were good reasons. Maybe, even though he was gay, he did not like being so, saw it as a personal issue to overcome and tried to fight it-- badly. In that case, in "hiding" it, he was doing exactly the right thing, according to his own code and that of many others. So there. If his sin was slipping up and giving in to lavatorial temptation-- then he is a sinner, but no hypocrite. He would know it was wrong for him to be there tappin' his toes, too; not wrong to fight his flawed nature.