Over a year ago, I wrote about the potential sex scandal simmering under the surface in the Randy “Duke” Cunningham mess, and stated that “[t]his one looks so far to be a Republican sex scandal, and depending on how it plays out, could really wound them this fall during election season.”

Well, nothing ever surfaced (so far!) from Cunningham’s debacle, but since then we’ve had David Vitter (R-La.), whose midlife crisis apparently extended to trying out Depends some thirty-some years early while in the company of *ahem* escorts. Somehow, the Grand Old Phobics (soon to be the Gay Old Party) decided that values and morals notwithstanding, Vitter’s mea culpas at his press conference following the revelations he’d been in contact with and apparently frequenting a New Orleans brothel was enough punishment. This is all in direct contrast to Bob Livingston (R-La.), the congressman who resigned in the wake of an affair– and the man that Vitter replaced. It’s also a curious reaction considering the amount of time spent hounding Bill Clinton while he was in office. Despite the fact that both Clinton and Vitter are admitted adulterers, Clinton’s affair was between two consenting adults, while Vitter paid for services– a transaction that under the law in 49 states is illegal.

Just a couple months after Vitter faced the music (and received a gentle slap on the hand), Larry Craig (R-Id.) got his turn in the spotlight. Seems back in June, during a layover, Craig got busted in an airport bathroom for allegedly soliciting sex. Craig pled guilty, fervently hoped that it would all go away, and then when it didn’t, the only thing that came out of his mouth was, “I’m not gay.”

Considering the coverage lately about Craig’s past, it seems his private life was a debacle just waiting to happen. Whatever you may think about adultery (and most Americans disapprove of such behavior), it’s definitely a double standard that Vitter is sent quietly to the corner for a few minutes, while Craig is shoved out the door. As Sandip Roy muses in his “In Defense of Larry Craig” on Salon, Craig didn’t even get any. While Vitter most likely most likely had a successful transaction, all Craig did was shuffle his feet into someone else’s boundaries and stick his hands under the stall. No exposure, no apparent verbal come-ons. Methinks the political punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

“But Craig pled guilty,” you say. Yep, you’re right. He did, and he paid the price. The arrest is permanently on his record, for the world to see. Vitter also committed an illegal act. Despite the fact that he hasn’t been arrested, and probably won’t be, what he did was no less illegal. According to Louisiana RS (Revised Statues) 14:82, prostitution is… “The solicitation by one person of another with the intent to engage in indiscriminate sexual intercourse with the latter for compensation,” among other things. A first offense is a fine of up to $500, a prison sentence up to six months, or both. While Vitter apparently won’t be paying a legal price for his actions, he is being quietly supported by his colleagues (and don’t tell me that they’re not supporting him– silence is tantamount to doing nothing, and that’s what they’re doing). Again, Craig is being thrown under the bus.

Quite a few people have noticed and commented on this double standard, but the Gay Old Party is having none of it.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., the Senate Republican campaign chairman, said Craig “admitted guilt. That is a big difference between being accused of something and actually admitting guilt.”

“David Vitter never did that. Larry Craig did,” continued Ensign on ABC’s “This Week” program.

Excuse me, Senator Ensign. Vitter all but admitted guilt during his press conference on July 16:

“Wendy and I dealt with this personally several years ago. I confronted it in confession and marriage counseling. I believe I received forgiveness from God. I know I did from Wendy, and we put it behind us.”

While he may have not directly come out and said, “I frequented a cathouse,” the context of his words clearly indicated he’d done so.

Ensign continued in defense of the GOP’s actions: Craig’s conduct was “embarrassing not only to himself and his family but to the United States Senate,” said Ensign. Before Craig’s announcement, Ensign had strongly suggested that he resign.

Again, Senator, back up a moment. Substitute “Vitter” for “Craig,” step back, and see what it says. Wouldn’t you agree the same is true?

GOP stalwart Ed Gillespie apparently agrees with Ensign, and had this to say:

“The fact is that Sen. Craig pled guilty to a crime, and therefore was convicted of a crime. Sen. Vitter has not been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. So there’s a pretty big distinction here,” Gillespie said on “Fox.”

Yes, legally there’s a distinction: Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct. Were Vitter to be charged and convicted, his crime would be solicitation. Morally, though, I don’t see a whole lot of “distinction” here. Perceptions are just as important as the legal niceties, and right now, gentlemen, the appearance is that your party is full of amoral hypocrites. Allowing Vitter to stick around while booting Craig out of the party is just another act of hypocrisy.

“But this all happened before Vitter became a Senator,” you say. Yes, that is true. But Vitter was a congressman. The calls that showed up on the call list are from October 1999 through February 2001. Vitter won an election to fill the remainder of Livingston’s term, and entered the U.S. Congress in June 1999- a good three months before his phone number started showing up in the “D.C. Madam’s” phone records. Last time I checked, the House of Representatives is a part of Congress. While he may not have been serving as Senator at the time, I personally think his conduct was “embarrassing not only to himself and his family but to the United States Congress.”

In any event, while both men used poor judgment and displayed inappropriate behavior, Craig’s real sins were those of homosexuality (which isn’t a sin to my mind) and seeking sex in public. For goodness sakes, man– you could have learned a lesson from some of your predecessors. For example, Ed Schrock, former Gay Old Party congressman from Virginia, tried to lead his double life through a gay phone chat service, which is a hell of a lot more discreet than a public bathroom. James Guckert/Jeff Gannon, the faux journalist who gained access to the White House, conducted his affairs online through escort services and the like. These days, there’s plenty of sex to be had, from online pay services to craigslist to tons of other much more discreet venues.

Now Craig is hinting he’s going to reconsider leaving the Senate. Good for him. As long as his party is going to impose a double standard and he’s out in the cold, what does he owe them? The matter should be between him and the people he represents. If Idahoans want him to continue as Senator, they’re certainly entitled to make that choice. I just hope if he remains that he has far more compassion for issues regarding sexuality and personal choices than he’s displayed in the past.

While I think Craig definitely deserved a slap on the hand (and the fine) for trolling in a public restroom, I think this whole episode raises some troubling questions: to what extent is it anyone’s business what goes on behind closed doors? While I certainly think people like Vitter and Craig deserve to be exposed as hypocrites, is it really necessary to conduct invasive searches into private lives? I don’t approve of the Republicans’ political vendettas against gays and moralizing about sex under the umbrella of “family values,” but I’m not so sure I’m wild about Mike Rogers‘ activities either. I’d prefer to see people’s energies focused on the positive aspects of human sexuality and on erasing the misconceptions, double standards, and demonization surrounding gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. So to a degree, I do agree with the Republicans– it’s a political witch hunt– too bad for them they’re being hypocrites, because their persecution of Clinton was a huge political witch hunt in itself (people who live in glass houses…).

I’m also bothered by the fact that an airport police officer is being paid to sit for hours in a toilet stall pretending to be gay, when there are far more important issues and concerns at airports. The kind of activity closeted men like Craig conduct is inappropriate in public, but at worst, all the solicitee has to say is, “No, thanks,” or “What the hell do you think you’re doing?!?”, get up, leave the stall, wash their hands, and go on their way. No funds or man-hours wasted; just a brush-off.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens this coming summer, since the Gay Old Party will be holding their convention in Minneapolis, the same exciting town where Senator Craig made the acquaintance of Sgt. Dave Karsnia. Anyone want to bet that a bull session or two might be scheduled for the airport?

It’s not just airport police that do this; it’s also vice squads in numerous American cities. It’s an inappropriate waste of time and money, in my opinion. I think there needs to be a two-fold solution here: 1) the decriminalization of prostitution, and 2) the de-demonization of sexuality. The only time police should be involved in sexual matters is in cases of assault, rape, incest, and child molestation. You’ll get no argument from me about expending time and resources on these crimes. But what consenting adults agree to is none of my business. I didn’t see Hillary Clinton leave Bill Clinton; I don’t see Wendy Vitter walking out on David Vitter (or pulling a Lorena Bobbitt, as she implied she would (Asked whether she could forgive her husband after an extramarital affair, as Livingston’s wife had done, Wendy Vitter told the Times-Picayune: “I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary [Clinton]. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”)); I certainly don’t see Suzanne Craig making a dash for divorce court either.

If it’s okay with Hillary, Wendy, and Suzanne, it’s okay with me.