A few liberal readers have taken offense to my suggestion that the “left” doesn’t object to anonymous cruising for gay sex in public places. I wrote: “Since most on the Left think Craig’s alleged sexual liaisons are perfectly benign, they shouldn’t object.” In response, these liberal readers say, in effect: “We’re as repulsed as anyone!” James Kirchick at The Plank even says any suggestion that liberals look the other way or don’t disapprove of anonymous bathroom humdingery is a “ridiculous and unsupported claim.” After criticizing other NRO writers, he goes on, “reading National Review, you’d think institutionalizing Tea-room trade was part of the gay rights agenda.” Well, a few points in somewhat random order:

1) First, I deliberately used “left” instead of “liberal” in the relevant sentence. But then I did revert back to liberal for most of the rest of the column. I probably could have been more exacting in the distinction.

2) Maybe I’m a product of my times, having grown up in New York City in the 1980s, but gay cruising in random places, specifically bathrooms, most certainly was part of the gay rights agenda (heck, I even remember when it was considered “anti-gay” to refer to the “gay agenda.” Now at least it’s simply anti-gay to describe the gay agenda in terms liberals don’t like. I guess that’s progress).

I haven’t paid that much attention to the issue in recent years, but I still don’t seem to recall a lot of liberals expressing their disgust with bathroom hook-ups when Jim McGreevey’s tale was revealed. Even in the 1990s gay leftists and others expressed outrage at the crackdowns on cruising. The July 1, 1997 Village Voice has a long indignant essay by Richard Goldstein (a gay leftist, to be sure) complaining about the rampant “discrimination” against gay men as evidenced by anti-cruising arrests in — guess where? — public rest rooms (it’s not on the web, I found it in Nexis). Those days are gone to certain extent, as gay culture becomes more bourgeois, but I still haven’t heard a lot condemnation about such behavior from liberals or leftists in recent years when it wasn’t aimed at conveniently conservative targets. I am open to correction.

3) Andrew Sullivan, admittedly is not a self-described leftist, but he is, I believe, still a Senior Editor at the New Republic. And not too long ago, he was defending himself against the leftwing charge that he was against anonymous gay sex, insisting that he still thought it was fine. I don’t know what Andrew’s current position is. But in 2000, he was still singing of “the beauty and mystery and spirituality of sex, including anonymous sex.” And, more recently, I saw him on C-SPAN interviewing Jim McGreevey at the 92nd Street Y (I believe) and he was still saying, albeit it in muted tones, that society needed to make room for such things as cruising highway rest-stops and the like. Last I checked, these views have never earned Andrew a moment’s grief from mainstream liberals — never mind his colleagues — and they have been cited in his defense among leftwingers. But, again, I am open to correction.

3) The LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund — a leftwing organization, I think it’s fair to say — issues a Little Black Book guide to gay people to be able to cruise more effectively and with fewer dire consequences. To be fair, they defend it at as a tool to fight harassment , but that hardly sounds like condemnation to me either. Nor have I ever heard a mainstream liberal denounce the effort or similar defenses of cruising by the ACLU (save perhaps during the height of the AIDS crisis).

4) To the extent liberals are denouncing Craig’s behavior, it seems pretty selective. For example, Chris Matthews opened his show the other night declaring: “The big story tonight, dirty politics. Idaho senator Larry Craig, cultural warrior of the right, stands naked tonight, exposed as both a sexual deviant and a world-class hypocrite.” No need to belabor the hypocrite accusation, but has anybody ever heard Mathews use the phrase “sexual deviant” against other gay men who cruise public places? I doubt it. And if he used that label on a prominent liberal gay politician does anyone doubt that left and liberal groups would denounce Matthews and demand an apology?

5) Oh, and let me retract a bit and actually belabor the hypocrisy thing for a second. Kirchick writes: “…Craig isn’t a hypocrite for seeking anonymous sex in an airport bathroom. He’s a hypocrite for (insert obligatory “allegedly”) being gay and opposing gay civil rights. The airport arrest was just confirmation–albeit, pathetic and unfortunate confirmation–of the Senator’s sexual orientation.”

James should look up the word “hypocrite.” It means to betray a belief you actually hold, not to betray a belief some New Republic staffer says you should hold. Craig is surely a hypocrite for violating his wedding vows and his “family values” talking points. He is not a hypocrite for being gay and opposing gay marriage or “gay rights” — nor, necessarily, is any other gay man who strays off the reservation. They may be wrong, corrupt or some other bad thing, but hypocrisy isn’t the issue when it comes to Craig’s positions on gay marriage etc.

By Kirchick’s bullying logic, gays must all think alike about homosexuality (at least in terms of public policy). If they don’t, they’re hypocrites. But there are gay people who oppose gay marriage. There are gay people who oppose hate crimes laws. And so on. Even if Craig came out of the closet tomorrow, that would hardly mean he couldn’t still think gay marriage is bad public policy.

6) Lastly: Contrary to Kirchick’s ridiculous and unsupported claim I am not suggesting that being gay is immoral.

Update: For those curious about the phrase “tea-room trade,” here’s the wikipedia entry.

Update II: Jeepers, I’d misspelled James Kirchicks name throughout. I just fixed it. My apologies.