This guy sounds no better than an AM radio neocon who probably found out a close relative is gay, and, wow, maybe they shouldn’t be sentenced to death by stoning.

He talks about “proselytizing” in schools. He claims that same-sex couples getting married is a threat to his own marriage. He’s in favor of the government getting to force religious values on people against their will, yet he claims he doesn’t approve of “intrusive government”.

He can do a lot more damage than a raving ignorant nutter who thinks that gays go away if you ignore them, because he’s sane enough to recognize facts, yet bigoted enough to think that gays ought to be permanent second-class citizens in a theocratic USA.

He, of course, can no longer call himself a Conservative (with a big C) ‘cos Conservatism is based on, resistance to change, to hold to all that was dear, things were better in the old days, crap. (that great twisted ‘by civilised’ ancesters shit is a doosie!).
Conservatives (as all are) closets are just full to overflowing and it’s no great surprise when a lovely fat flounder like a senator falls out on to the floor for it’s former colleagues to feast on. It’s what makes spectatin’ great!

This particular incident with Craig may not be harassment of the specific type that is routinely used against gay men. Nonetheless, this one incident doesn’t change the fact that the majority of such laws ARE placed almost exclusively onto gay men.

Further, I think there IS some degree of this being a correct application of the law. However, that doesn’t stop it being discriminatory also. To merely look to one location for an act, especially when it comes to the law, is a rather simplistic approach.

Oh, and your contention that gay men are no long forced into bathroom sex is also an oversimplification. Some men ARE forced into such by the nature of their (sub)cultures and communities. The idea that all gay men are now completely free to pursue relationships and sex just like straight men are is a fantasy.

BUT, did Craig leer through the crack in the door in response to signals from the policeman? I am suspicious that he did; why did he pick the policeman in particular if the policeman wasn’t making overtures? If the policeman was making overtures, the legitimacy of the arrest diminishes a great deal. But Craig didn’t make that argument, and was seriously inhibited from making it by the way he’s lived his life. He wasn’t going to say, “You were coming on to me, I recognized the signals and responded to your invitation. ‘Interference with privacy, forsooth!’”

I’ve heard this incident described as reflecting a clash between older gay culture and newer gay culture. During Craig’s formative years, places like bathrooms were where you went, a lot of gay sex took place in furtive, shadowy encounters. So this sort of activity was natural to someone in that era, and the police really had no moral right to interfere, since it was prejudice and harassment that made it necessary.

Now, I think the situation has changed. Gay men are not forced into furtive bathroom sex, and there’s a lot more reasonableness in the police clearing sexual encounters out of the bathroom - especially an airside bathroom, where people trying to catch a flight shouldn’t have to wait for a stall to be vacated by two men who are having sex in it, taking more time than they are rightly entitled to.

You could be right. It could be harassment. But I am not yet convinced of that, although I have some suspicion. But my argument, I think, is at least a legitimate one, and may in fact reflect what was happening in this case.

Hypocrisy should be properly understood as the absence of standards rather than the failure to live up to standards.

No, hypocrisy is having two sets of standards: one for yourself and one for other, usually lesser, people. Frankly, I don’t think anyone can have a absence of standards.