Why it matters if Craig is gay

There's an insightful diary on the rec list by williamtriallawyer.  There, the diarist teases out of the media's coverage what looks like a conflation of two very distinct issues, namely, committing a crime versus being gay. Making this distinction is wholly in order, since (I can't believe I'm writing this) being gay is not a crime.

But it doesn't follow that it's irrelevant whether or not Craig is gay. And that's why we need to make a second distinction.

Generally speaking, I don't care whether or not someone is gay. I do however care about someone 1) who is gay and 2) who marginalizes gay people through his political agenda, his hate speech, through the votes he casts in the Senate, etc. And I care about that because I care about hypocrisy.

What we're getting in some of the media coverage is a half-assed job that's easily assimilated into right-wing talking points. The media begins by implying there's something problematic about the possibility of Craig being gay. And that's appropriate because there is something problematic about it, namely, the hypocrisy. But the media won't go so far as to say that. So, instead, we're left with an undiagnosed problem, waiting to be spun by the anti-gay segments of our society who are, of course, happy to provide their own diagnosis of the problem (i.e. "homosexuality's wrong").

To summarize briefly:

1. some in the traditional media are (correctly) noting there's a problem;

2. but they won't say what the problem is (i.e. the hypocrisy).

And the ambiguity which results creates a context in which ludicrous ideas can get traction; ideas like "Being gay is tantamount to committing a crime." So, let's debunk such outlandish claims when they appear. But let us not forget to address the problem of hypocrisy at the heart of the Craig issue. The religious right won't let him off the hook, and we --for very different reasons-- shouldn't either.