Why Larry Craig Doesn't Deserve the Gay Card

POLITICALLY INCORRECT POST ALERT

So the media storm over Larry Craig’s arrest seems like such an ineffective tempest in a toilet-bowl: it raised a mighty stink but when it ended, still left something unpleasant hanging around. And as far as I can see, the hapless guy was hounded mercilessly into non-resigning, for no good reason. His crimes allegedly being that he is gay, a hypocrite (he's a family-values politician!) and behaved immorally in a public place (sleazy at worst, really).

The part of the controversy that does worry me is that we’re faced with the prospect of having Craig labeled as being part of the LGBT community. Make no mistake, I thoroughly enjoyed the homophobic Craig’s humiliating public repudiation by his own party, on the assumption that he is gay. But now that that’s been achieved, I’d much rather have him stay classified straight, alien or whatever else - as long as its also not-gay. The good news is that he is still denying that he’s gay (thats really what he was trying to tell that cop in Morse Code). So I think we should seize the moment and actively support him in his claim. (btw you can find more Darly Cagle cartoons here)
Frankly, for me the best reason for doing so is that anyone who doesn’t want to be gay shouldn’t have to be and that we shouldn’t want them to be part of our community either. But for many people that’s not always a convincing enough reason. So here’s 5 (no less) other good reasons why we should not give Craig the coveted gay card:

a) He’s a nasty bad naughty role model: This guy’s been shown to be a coward, a hypocrite, a cheater, a sleaze-bag etc etc. At this point he probably wouldn’t be admitted even to Walmart’s Sam’s Club membership program. Why should we be so keen to give him entrée into our fabulous fests, chic clubs and swinging street fairs?
b) He’s from Idaho: I know that’s neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to deny him membership. I mean his being born an Idahiot is like being born gay. He couldn’t help it. I agree. But taken in conjunction with the first point – I think its grounds for rejection of his application (assuming there ever is one).
c) He’s from Idaho: AND didn’t have the sense to move states despite having the cash and the opportunity to do so. Again, sensibility or the lack of it, should not normally be a criteria for issuing laminated rainbow cards. But what if the guy himself is giving us an option? Like Craig is. It would be like the US giving a resident permit to someone who has no demonstrably useful skills, lists multiple criminal convictions in their home country, and refuses to apply for political asylum despite potentially qualifying for it. I have no doubt that USIS would happily reject the application.
d) Its for his own good and we’re a compassionate crowd: This guy has more baggage than Imelda Marcos packing for a long trip - a likely-soon-to-be-ex wife, five – count them, five - kids, a mug shot and a history of infidelity. And, the guy is old enough to be a contemporary of the Jurassic Age dinosaurs. He has zero chance of finding someone in the gay world who would fall into a relationship with him...unless it also involved being written a check at the end of each night. Craig might not be satisfied in his current marriage but at least its something that he has had a few decades to get used to. Continuing to be straight-classified might save him from being lonely for the rest of his life. And it will definitely be easier on his ego and lighter on his pocket-book. So lets give the guy a break.
e) He doesn’t know how to treat a Fag Hag: For those who didn’t spend the last seven years watching Will and Grace – a fag hag is a gay man’s best friend. She’s typically a woman, usually straight, who gives her fag unconditional love, holds his hand when one-night-stands don’t stand the test of daylight, acts as his beard at office functions if he works for ExxonMobil and basically does everything for him except perhaps change his diapers. And I think at the height of the AIDS crisis some of them even did that. No kidding. In other words the fag/fag-hag relationship is a sacred one. In return all they seem to expect is an album full of happy memories at the end of it. Oh and that when you do leave them alone in a gay club to go home with that one-night-stand that they helped you land in the first place, you’ll at least buy them a drink first.

The only charitable explanation for the longevity of the Craigs’ marriage is that there was/is real companionship between them. If Craig had been ‘out’, his wife would have been his Fag Hag. And if Suzanne really did not know of Craig’s rest-room exploits, she’s likely to spend a good chunk of her remaining lifetime regurgitating memories from the last 24 years and trying to figure out which of those were real involving real emotions. Questioning each romantic holiday, gesture, touch…that happened over a 24 year period. I have a feeling not many happy memories will survive that scrutiny. If the Senator from Idaho maintained his deception over 24 years with his soul-mate, someone who probably cared deeply for him, then he really should not be given the privilege of admittance to our community. Many of us are bitchy and shallow and self-serving, but given an extended period of time, any gay man (or woman) worth his (her) salt will do right by his (her) fag hag (fag stag).

In closing let me just refer to what one of the Senator’s sons said as the controversy was cresting. He said he believed his (step)-father was not gay but that even if he was, it would be OK. It was a wonderful statement of love, support and unconditional acceptance. And showed that Craig got at least some things right in his life. But his son’s statement probably also depressed the Senator like hell. Because it must have brought home to him, that he's spent an entire tortured lifetime suppressing his true self for a bunch of idiots in his home state and in his party who didn’t really care for him and who disowned him faster than you can say 'faggot' when the pants…err chips…were down. While at the same time deceiving the people who actually did care for him and who might’ve accepted him for what he was anyway...if only he'd chosen to be honest with them anytime in the last three decades.

Sadly, I think Larry Craig is right. Through his life, he may have been nominally homosexual, but he’s probably never been gay in any sense of the word. And likely never will be.

I say, hold the lamination presses.