Rand Simberg has a post Glenn Reynolds linked earlier, which is so good that I don’t think it belongs in an update to either of the posts I’ve written about Senator Larry Craig; hence this post.
Commenting on the now-routine charge that Larry Craig is guilty of “hypocrisy” for being against gay marriage, Simberg asks a couple of excellent questions:

what difference does it make what his position is on gay marriage? It would have made as much, or as little, sense to me to have written, “Craig, who has voted to cut taxes,” or “Craig, who has voted against more stringent gun controls.” The guy’s supposedly a conservative. How did they expect him to vote?

With the left, of course. But gay marriage is seen as one of those litmus test things which every gay person must support. This brings to mind another obvious question:

Where is it written that gay people are intrinsically supposed to support gay marriage?

I’ve asked that myself, as it often seems to me that people concerned with sexual freedom and sexual privacy might think twice about casually giving the government (via Family Law courts) jurisdiction over their domestic lives. And it would happen. Once marriage is there, how would people opt out? Heterosexual couples cannot opt out of palimony or court-implied common law marriage status, and unless special exceptions were passed for gay couples who didn’t want to conform, what would stop an angry gay partner from hauling his ex into court on a palimony lawsuit? (Right now, they can’t.) A lot of gays are very concerned with preserving their privacy, and they don’t especially want the nanny state coming into their lives, with census takers asking them if they have lovers, and things like that. There are bohemian type people who don’t want to be mainstreamed and normalized. By what authority do these activists pretend to make them do that? Right now, they have no legal authority, but gay marriage offers a way to let the government — and activists — in the bedrooms of people who simply don’t want “help.”
You’d almost think that there was no moral right to privacy, nor a right for anyone to be in the closet. Indeed, “closet” is a word implying evil. Secrecy. Something to hide. Those who are not open about their homosexuality are considered pathetic misfits, and morally opprobrious by those who demand they “come out.” And those who are conservative on top of that are guilty of “self loathing.”
Who the hell has any right to demand that anyone else “come out,” anyway? I think it’s despicable.
Where does it end? And from where does this system of morality derive? I thought the idea was to get past the imposition of sexual morality by society, not reimpose it. With the old system of stigmatized homosexuality, it was believed that normal people had a right to look down on homosexuals, who were disgraced. A man’s sexuality was a relevant consideration in determining where he could work, where he could live, and even whether he had the right to freedom itself. Under the new, “improved” system, homosexuals only have limited rights; provided they surrender their privacy by publicly announcing they are gay and declare themselves part of an “identity,” they are permitted to claim certain rights and privileges. But if they feel uncomfortable with building a whole identity around their genitalia, they’re seen as less than full citizens. Why is that? Whatever happened to the right to make up your mind about how you want to live?
Seriously, this not-letting-people-be-in-the-closet business is the same mechanism that used to tyrannize closeted gay people in the old days. They once feared being outed, and they still fear being outed. Only the identities and political perspectives of the Ask and Tell people have changed. (Of course, they used to pry in order to hurt; now they pry in order to “help.” Help the identity politics cause, that is.)
Anyway, I don’t know whether Larry Craig is gay, or straight, or bi, or confused, or in the closet. So I can’t say that he is “in the closet” — even though he is considered to be “out” by now. But why doesn’t he (or didn’t he — at least before the guilty plea) have the same right to be in the closet as any other asshole walking around on the streets? It seems to me that if Larry Craig had no moral right to be in the closet, then neither do they.
Is that desirable? Should all people have to confess their innermost sexual desires, so that they can be officially tolerated — but only by the Democratic Party?
It sure seems that way.
What a racket. I’m amazed people can’t see past it.
Finally, speaking of rackets, Simberg also discusses the “sex offsets” racket:

So votes for gay marriage and keeping abortion legal are “sex offsets” for Republicans. In fact, come to think about it, it’s what kept Republican Bob Packwood in office for so long, despite his long history of sexually harassing women. Apparently, though, he apparently didn’t buy enough of them to cancel out his most egregious behavior.
In other words, as long as you vote like a Democrat, you get a free pass, just like them.

I’ve called this “Official Certification of Non-Bigoted Status” and argued it’s often fueled by “homophobophobia” (a deleted Wiki word, BTW).
Beware! This can all lead us straight down the path towards double reverse outing! (It’s not as if we weren’t warned.)
Whatever happened to the right to be left alone?
Don’t ask. It’s evil to want to be left alone. Such an obsession with individualism might lead to the closet!
(Of course, it would be unreasonable to expect such a powerful source of shame to be lightly discarded. That’s why we have new closet masters.)
UPDATE (08/31/07): My thanks to Matthew Sheffield of Newsbusters for the link — in a very thoughtful post.