The Lesson of the Larry Craig Incident - Updated

Update: Andrew Sullivan has his say (see below).

The lesson of the Larry Craig incident is most certainly not that unless we pass gay rights laws and legalize gay marriage homosexual men will be forced to engage in these kinds of anonymous, clandestine sexual encounters. Remember the David Vitter case? Try this on for size: as long as heterosexuals do not have equal rights, and heterosexual marriage remains illegal, straight men like David Vitter will be forced to hire prostitutes or engage in one night stands to satisfy their urges.

Many men seem to prefer multiple, anonymous sexual encounters. Or perhaps most men prefer this - but due to their sense of morality, or responsibility, or innate shyness, or fear of disease, or fear of wrecking an existing monagamous relationship, they do not act on it. My guess is that this applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homosexuals have the additional temptation that this anonymous sex can often (usually?) be had with no monetary charge - for example, in a public bathroom stall.

Larry Craig seems to have enjoyed his family life, or at least the image of his family life - faithful, supportive wife, beaming chidren of his seed. He could not have occupied such a world in a homosexual relationship - even in a legal marriage. Andrew Sullivan, for example, may well be perfectly satisfied in his monagamous relationship. But if he weren't, he'd have to cruise around for sex in shadowy encounters, lest his partner find out about it, or such activity sully his reputation (and that of the gay-rights cause).

So draw your own lessons from this sordid affair, but to think that legalizing gay relationships will eliminate such behavior is just silly.

Update:
Andrew Sullivan is back from vacation and naturally has some interesting commments. But he makes the very mistake I would have predicted:

That's why women and social norms are the main historic constraints on male sexuality. And why, with gay men or straight men who don't care who's blowing them, the social norms, like civil marriage, are even more important. But the Christianist right wants no social acceptance of gay relationships and no random sex either.

As pointed out here in the comments, Sully himself has exhibited some untoward behavior despite being already openly gay. How will being legally "married" make any difference? Who's going to care if a homosexual is faithful to his partner or not? Oh yeah, just imagine it: "John was a pillar of the community, beloved for his lifelong devotion to the community and to his partner of 25 years, Bill. But then John was accused of soliciting sex in a rest stop on Route 80 and it all came crashing down..." Sorry, I don't buy the "social norms as constraint" argument here.