Following the Larry Craig story, it occurs to me that what he’s accused of doing - cruising for gay sex is a public toilet - is the very thing I wrote about a couple months back at Long’s Park.

In talking to local cops, they said exactly what the cops are saying in the Craig case: That there’s a drill, a procedure to how it all works. A few taps of the foot, or whatever; code that those in the know - which unfortunately for the likes of Craig includes the cops - can understand.

When I wrote the local story of what happens at Long’s Park I included the assertion that however bad it can be, it’s certainly less than it was years ago, before police started cracking down. Locking some of the restrooms up tight made a difference. But perhaps the most interesting response I got came from a gay man, who noted that I’d written things in the past that might be construed as friendly toward the gay community; and now, why this hit piece? Why make a situation for gay men who may still be in the closet out of some necessity even harder by drawing attention to the situation at Long’s Park, and thus them?

And I remember thinking - and responding - that while I’m not unsympathetic to the plight of closeted gay men, a public restroom in a public park - or an airport, for that matter - ain’t the place for it. And to the extent that this causes a problem for closeted gay men, that they really don’t have anywhere else to go, well, I don’t know how to square that circle.

But there’s also got to be a vicarious thrill to the quick hookup in public. Why else would a U.S. Senator - who ostensibly could have his choice of time and place - be involved in such a thing? The danger is part of the lure. The furtiveness makes it all the headier. What I don’t know is whether this is more of an issue in a place like Lancaster County, or for a congressman from conservative Idaho, where by nature you have to be more furtive if you’re going to stay securely in the closet.