Letters to the Editor	Letters Archive

T-Rooms Not 'Queer' Space

I'm usually a fan of your editorials, which are generally thoughtful and interesting even when I disagree with them, but October 2007's ["Senators, Cops, and T-Room Sex," available at Guidemag.com] has me shaking my head. While your basic analysis of the three gay responses to the Craig tearoom bust is basically right, you make the fundamental mistake of assuming they are mutually exclusive. Baloney! One can loathe the sorts of undercover stings that bust people for tapping their toe in a toilet and believe they should be abolished forever, while simultaneously understanding that getting caught is an occupational hazard of hypocrisy and that the unmasking of hypocrites who use positions of authority to hurt people is in many ways a good thing, even if the means by which a particular unmasking is accomplished are despicable.

S

View our poll archive

urely queers should understand that the world is not black and white and most things in it are neither all good nor all evil. Most things are a mixture of both, and so it is with Craig. While I haven't researched whether he's ever voted or spoken on issues having to do with public sex, "lewd conduct" stings and the like, can there be any doubt where he would stand if something like this came before his Senate committee? Craig and the cop who busted him (and the people who sent the cop to bust him) are equally loathsome.

It's worth noting that at several different points in this saga, Craig had the opportunity to act honorably, but chose at every point not to do so. And while it's certainly true that all, or even most, who engage in tearoom sex are not pathetic closet cases, he rather clearly is, as his repeated public appearances beside his suffering beard -- uh, wife -- only serve to underline.

What's heartening to me is that most people I've seen, gay and straight, have understood the complexities of this rather well.

On a related point, while I heartily agree that society is needlessly and foolishly sex-phobic, I vehemently object to the characterization of the location of Sen. Craig's attempted tryst as a "queer space." A public restroom in a busy airport is a public space, used by people of all types, ages, beliefs, orientations, etc., etc. If people of diverse persuasions are to live together in reasonable peace and calm, a certain measure of civility and -- to use an old-fashioned, out of style word -- politeness is required. That means having a little respect for those who came there to use the facilities for their intended purpose, and making a reasonable effort not to annoy and inconvenience them. What Craig did would not in any sane world be a crime, but I've seen plenty of tearoom situations where people not part of that scene were needlessly annoyed and inconvenienced by gay men in heat who seemingly were never taught any common courtesy.

To put it another way: Chances are a larger percentage of this restroom's patrons would identify as Christian than as gay/bi/queer/cruising. Does that make the restroom a "Christian space"? I sure as hell hope not. If we want straight Christians to leave us alone, we owe them the same courtesy.

Name withheld by request
Washington, D.C.

What if it had been you?

It is just too easy for homosexuals, who have suffered from the votes and words of Idaho's Senator Craig, to jump for joy and have a "gay" old time with his fall, his hypocrisy having been exposed as has happened to several "conservative" Republicans.

But shouldn't we ask ourselves if he should have been arrested? What have we been working to stop since the 1950s? Of course what we should ask Senator Craig is, "do you think the arrest would have been valid if the person arrested were gay?"

And in a complete change from what happened in Idaho (Boise) years ago, the local newspaper seems to have been on "our" side. But has anyone looked into the person who made the arrest? What record does he have? How long had he spent in that restroom? What law was broken? What is "lewd" conduct, and if the individuals involved had not had a sex act there but had gone to a private room, again, what law would have been broken?

Sure, the arrest could not have happened to a more "deserving" person, but what if you had been the person arrested, or some one you loved?

Americans who still do not understand how we have been misused by law enforcement agents, bigoted psychiatrists (who can testify against us in court and help parents send their homosexual children to a "camp" to "change them"), and the lazy media people who still have no clue as to the real issues surrounding homosexuality and will never make the effort to find out if they only hear from "professional" gays who seek celebrity and lots of money for being gay.

Billy Glover
Bossier City, Louisiana