The
Bigger Larry Craig Scandal
by
David R. Henderson
by David R. Henderson
DIGG THIS
In all of the
discussion of Senator Larry Craig’s sexual inclinations and actions
in the Minneapolis airport in June, there has been surprisingly
little objection to police sergeant Dave Karsnia’s action in arresting
him. Yet the bigger scandal is not Senator Craig’s actions, however
repulsive or pitiful some of us might find them. The bigger scandal
lies in Karsnia’s actions and in the very existence of the law he
enforced.
What did
Senator Craig do? Consider the facts. He solicited sex from another
adult and then tried to use his status as a U.S. Senator to get
a break from the policeman. The more serious action is the second
one. No one should be above the law by reason of his profession,
and Craig was wrong to try to get out of trouble that way. Those
who judge Craig badly for that are justified in doing so. They,
and the rest of us, would also be justified in outrage at Karsnia
if we hear that Karsnia, like many other policemen, flashes his
badge when a traffic cop pulls him over for speeding. Policemen
shouldn’t be above the law either, although many of them are.
But back
to Craig’s first action, which is what got him in trouble with the
law. Craig was
charged with "disorderly conduct" and "interference
with privacy." What he had done was make sexual overtures
to the person in the bathroom cubicle next to him, namely police
Sergeant Dave Karsnia. Although Karsnia did not lead Craig on, neither
did Karsnia communicate clearly that he was not interested in having
sex with Craig. Think about that. Craig makes sexual overtures and
doesn’t get turned down. How unreasonable and, more important, how
"disorderly" or "interfering" is it to continue
soliciting sex when the person you are soliciting hasn’t committed
either way? And if solicitation is illegal because it interferes
with privacy, does that mean homeless people who ask me for money
are breaking the law? They’re certainly interfering with my privacy.
We can
argue about whether there should be laws against soliciting sex
from those who have clearly turned you down. I think there shouldn’t
be; we have many peaceful options for discouraging people from soliciting
sex from us. For example, the one time a homosexual man persisted
with me beyond all good taste, I angrily picked up my sleeping bag
(this happened while I was sleeping on a friend’s living room floor)
and left the room. Had he persisted and forced himself on me, then
and only then would I have been justified in using force against
him. And I would have punched him.
But even if
you think there should be laws against soliciting sex from those
who have said no, that doesn’t matter for this case. By his own
admission, Sergeant Karsnia never said no.
Many people,
including me, find it disgusting that some people solicit sex from
others in public bathrooms. That hardly implies that it should be
illegal. Should soliciting sex in bars be illegal while soliciting
sex in bathrooms is not? If so, what is the difference in principle?
Especially
disappointing in the discussion of the Larry Craig affair have been
the views expressed by prominent liberals and prominent homosexuals.
Take Stephanie
Miller, the left/liberal talk show host on Air America. A caller
to her show told her that she feared for her 8-year-old son if people
like Larry Craig were not held accountable for soliciting sex. Here
was Miss Miller’s perfect opportunity to explain that there’s an
important difference between soliciting sex from another adult who
has the power to say no and soliciting sex from a vulnerable 8-year-old.
But did she do that? No. Instead, she piled on and stoked her caller’s
fear. Now, unless I’m wrong, Miss Miller favors allowing sex between
consenting adults. And for there to be sex, one person usually solicits
another. But Miss Miller did not defend Senator Craig’s right to
do so.
And where was
the gay community? At least some of their prominent members were
AWOL also. Consider Andrew Sullivan, one of the most articulate
defenders in America of the right to have homosexual sex. Yet on
his web site, Sullivan
focused entirely on Larry Craig’s hypocrisy. Interestingly,
he didn’t establish Craig’s hypocrisy. Instead Sullivan pointed
out that Craig supported a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
and was against laws to ban job discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. But one could favor both of these political views and
still engage in gay sex without being hypocritical. What if, for
example, one believes that marriage is between a man and a woman?
One could be a homosexual, closeted or otherwise, and believe that.
As to laws that ban job discrimination, there is nothing in being
homosexual per se that would make one opposed to freedom of association.
And freedom of association means the right of each person to work
with or not work with other people. An employer has the right not
to hire someone because that person has a particular sexual orientation
just as a potential employee has the right not to work for someone
who has a particular sexual orientation. It’s just that the employer’s
right is not honored in this country while the potential employee’s
right still is.
Moreover,
even if Craig were a hypocrite, while that speaks badly of him,
it doesn’t address the issue of whether soliciting other adults
for sex should be illegal. Is Sullivan saying that the only people
who should have the right to sexually solicit adults of the same
gender are those who are not hypocrites on the issue? Are one’s
rights conditional on one’s views or are they, as the Declaration
of Independence states, unalienable? And remember that Sullivan
is not a random gay spokesman but is possibly the most articulate
gay spokesman of his generation. If even he can’t see the larger
issue of rights here, what hope do we believers in freedom have?
One
of the government’s favorite games is to cook up controversies that
create conflict among normal people who would normally get along.
This is what the Nixon, Ford, and Carter governments did with price
controls on oil and gasoline, which led to line-ups for gasoline
and occasional violence among people lining up. This is what George
W. Bush is doing with the Iraq war, creating conflict between the
U.S. military and many innocent Iraqis. This is what governments
do with the drug war, creating conflict between otherwise-peaceful
drug retailers and the people in low-income neighborhoods. We shouldn’t
fall for it. And it is especially troublesome to see bright people
like Andrew Sullivan and Stephanie Miller fall for it. The villain
of the piece is Dave
Karsnia. Let’s not forget it.
October
2, 2007
David
R. Henderson [send
him mail] is
a research fellow with the Hoover Institution and an associate professor
of economics at the Graduate School of Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate
School, in Monterey, California. His latest book, co-authored with
Charles L. Hooper, is Making
Great Decisions in Business and Life (Chicago Park Press,
2006.)
Copyright
© 2007 by David R. Henderson
David
Henderson Archives
|