Tap your foot once for yes ...

I'll admit, I found the whole Larry Craig controversy a little funny. At first.

Craig, as you undoubtedly know by now, is the Idaho soon-to-be former senator, who pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent behavior after his arrest in a Minneapolis bathroom in an undercover sex sting. He contends that he most decidedly is not, and never has been, gay, and pleaded guilty simply to spare himself and others the hassles of a trial. The married Craig insists that this is all a misunderstanding, and he is out to clear his good name.

(And, apparently, in updates today, re-claim his senate seat; using the word "intends" before "resign" may give him legal leeway. The outlook on whether or not he can overturn the guilty plea is somewhat less certain.)

First things first: I think Craig most likely is gay. I suspect that undercover cop knew exactly what he was looking for, and Craig's claims that he has a "wide stance" sound a little suspect. I find it hard to believe that bathroom propositions are so ambiguous that an innocent bystander could really be that misunderstood. I suspect that Craig has been living closeted his entire life. He truly does not consider himself gay - he thinks he is straight, and sometimes engages in a little clandestine "recreation" on the side.

Secondly: I don't think Craig should have had to resign. OK, so Craig came onto some guy in a bathroom. Why he is being singled out for bad behavior? When David Vitter - yet another "pro-family" senator, this one from Louisiana - was outed for being the client of a well-known Washington DC prostitute, he wasn't pressured to resign. He said his mea culpas and spent some time in seclusion, ostensibly to have some "quality time" with his wife. (And who isn't slightly curious to hear those conversations?)

Is it because Craig is gay? We can tolerate a certain amount of bad behavior from the straight guys because, well, boys will be boys. The Kennedys and Cinton got away with it - we can all turn our heads because, from time to time, even the best men will stray. But a gay affair? Now that's tawdry? Personally, I think it smacks of homophobia. I'm not defending sexual deviants, but I think a consensual affair is not the same thing as what Mark Foley did - sexually harassing minors is never funny.

I also think these bathroom stings are counterproductive. Men are being arrested for asking other men for sex - is this illegal? Are we going to shut down every bar in the country, every place where men try to pick up women - or vice versa? Or is the goal - once again - to go after only the gay pick-up places?

I'm not suggesting that all men's public restrooms be allowed to turn into wild pick-up joints. But I do know that there is a secret culture of bathroom rendezvous, and it is very subtle. Every university in the country has its spots, well-known to those who are interested. It is so covert that those who weren't looking would never guess. The signals are known, and most men who wish not to participate are blissfully ignorant.

Before we castigate Larry Craig, I think we need to examine a little closer the motives. If he is being forced out of Congress for behavior we won't tolerate from anyone, then that's one thing. But if we are creating two sets of standards - a separate set of rules and morals for those who are gay - then we might need to rethink how we are treating this particular group of Americans. We no longer condone discrimination on the basis of race or sex; sexual orientation is the next logical step.

I don't necessarily want my U.S. senators propositioning men in public restrooms. Nor do I want them picking up prostitutes, taking illegal kick-backs, or using undue influence for improper gains. What I do want is for the rules to be consistent. If Larry Craig really should go, then there are plenty of others who should join him. If this were to keep up, we could have one empty Senate chamber by October.