Everybody seems to agree that Idaho Senator Larry Craig is “disgusting” (in Mitt Romney’s now famous phrase) but there’s widespread confusion as to why.

  The conventional wisdom suggests that the prime element in his disgrace involves his “hypocrisy” --- Senator Craig opposed same-sex marriage at the same time that he apparently pursued degrading gay behavior in his private life.

   But a simple thought experiment proves that the reprehensible nature of the Senator’s behavior hardly depends on his “hypocrisy” or his political stance. Imagine that he took the opposite position on gay marriage – and all other issues of interest to homosexuals, including extending civil rights and hate crimes “protections” on the basis of sexual orientation. Imagine, in short, that his position on social issues approximated the platform of Dennis Kucinich rather than the platform of Mike Huckabee.

  If this alternate-reality version of Senator Craig – an “enlightened” Senator with a 100% approval rating from the Human Rights Campaign – were to plead guilty for lewd behavior because of soliciting sex from an undercover cop in a Minnesota men’s room, would his behavior count as any more acceptable?

  While die-hard liberals might feel a greater instinct to excuse such conduct from a Democratic Senator who got busted in a bathroom, the public would no doubt express the same revulsion regarding the Solon’s conduct --- even if they didn’t get the chance to mock his plaintive insistence that “I’m not gay.”

  In other words, it’s the very nature of Craig’s behavior (with the Minnesota bust allegedly not the first time he’s engaged in such sleazy activity) that destroyed his career and his dignity –not the contrast between that behavior and his professed defense of the family.

  Consider the example of Oregon Senator Bob Packwood. Yes, he was a Republican, but he was strongly pro-abortion, and widely hailed as the most “enlightened” and “pro-feminist” GOP’er in the Senate. That didn’t help him when it became clear that he had manhandled literally dozens of female visitors to his office—the shame was so great that his career collapsed, even though no one had ever identified Packwood as a “family values” conservative.

   A closer examination of the entire Craig conundrum makes it clear that it’s soliciting sex in men’s rooms that’s inherently disgusting – irresponsible, anti-social, profoundly self-destructive behavior--regardless of the political or religious affiliations of the individual who engages in these practices.

   With this point in clear focus, it’s worth considering the left’s current attempt to discredit all conservatives – or at least all religious conservatives—by dwelling on Larry Craig’s disgrace.

  If the essence of his shame involves his behavior itself, rather than the political positions he may have taken, then the relevant question is: are religious conservatives as a group more likely than members of other groups to pursue (or defend) anonymous sex in bathrooms?

  The answer ought to be obvious. There are at the very least 50 million Americans who proudly identify themselves as “religious conservatives.” The percentage of these people who engage in cheap thrills in public toilets would be very, very small. The percentage of religious conservatives who would defend, or even glamorize, such conduct would be absolutely zero.

   For the sake of contrast, consider the gay male community. Of course, the great majority of homosexual men have never participated in sex acts in rest rooms. But it’s safe to say that the percentage of gay males who have accumulated such experiences would be vastly higher than in any other group in the population. Arrests of heterosexual males or females for public sex in toilets are virtually non-existent. Arrests of homosexual men for such degradation is, however, comparatively common ---creating a current and raging controversy, for instance, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, because of Mayor Naugle’s determination to halt the practice.

  Moreoever, some gay activists and artists even speak out in favor of toilet sex. British playwright Joe Orton proudly described his own participation in such encounters with strangers, and the acclaimed movie about his life (“Prick Up Your Ears”) featured lush, lavishly romantic scenes of homosexual embraces in filthy bathrooms.

   This brings us back to the question of using the Craig case to smear conservatives.

   If it’s the behavior itself, and not the hypocrisy, that makes the soon-to-be-former Idaho Senator disgusting, then only one group should feel discredited and ashamed over this means of “sexual expression”: the only segment of society that practices or justifies restroom encounters with strangers.

   It requires twisted logic indeed to try to use the appropriate public revulsion with this degeneracy to try to attack social conservatives as a movement, when they never condone, and very rarely practice, such sad and despicable behavior.

  Meanwhile, one can only hope that the unfortunate Larry Craig will ultimately seek and receive the help and healing he very obviously needs.