From this San Francisco publication (which has a "Duhhh, ya think?" headline):

Craig, who has voted against gay marriage, finds his political future in doubt in the wake of the charges, which have drawn national attention.

I know that some may think it relevant, and certainly a lot of people in Baghdad By The Bay obviously will, but really, 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?

OK, let's take it as a given that he's gay. He's married, but there was no issue from it (his three children are step-children, brought to the marriage by his wife), so he's probably not even bi (one wonders what the arrangement is with his wife).

Where is it written that gay people are intrinsically supposed to support gay marriage? I can understand that many, perhaps even most gay people do, but not all of them do. And if they do so, it's for personal reasons, not necessarily any particular political principle. They want to get married.

But part of the problem with America today is that there are too few people who make political decisions based on any coherent set of principles, instead only arguing for outcomes that they personally like (a classic example is support for Roe v Wade among abortion supporters, because they like abortion to be universally legal more than they like adhering to the Constitution). It's obviously appealing to cheer for some wealth transfer that benefits you at someone else's expense, which can be rationalized away as "taking it from greedy corporations," or "the rich."

If I were to indulge in such a thing, I'd argue for laws that ban rap music, laws that required everyone in the country to contribute a dollar a month to the Benevolent Society For The Aid And Support Of Rand Simbergs, laws that forced Starbucks to offer protein with their pastries, etc.

But I don't. And not just because the chances of getting such laws passed are small, and it would be a waste of my time. I don't do it because I have a set of political principles by which I try to abide, regardless of the impact on me personally. I believe in free speech, even for rappers, I don't believe in arbitrary wealth transfers, even when it's a transfer to me. I believe in the freedom of the marketplace, even when it comes to a company as evil as Starbucks.

So why should a gay person, if conservative, be expected to support as distinctly non-conservative an idea as gay marriage? I suspect that he truly does believe that homosexuality is wrong, so he has to live a tortured existence, feeling compelled by his nature to sin, and by his shame and fear of damage to his career and reputation to hide it (however pathetically). But I don't see why he's obligated by this accident of nature (and an unfortunate one, for him) to support others' political agendas, and betray his own principles.

[Update in the late afternoon]

I think that Raoul Ortega has nailed the thinking in comments. Over at Instaman's place, this morning, Greg Hlatky joked:

If Senator Craig purchased sex offsets to live a sex-neutral lifestyle, would this immunize him from charges of hypocrisy?"

To which Glenn replied:

Indubitably. But who would sell them?

Well, we now have the answer, from Raoul:

Voting for "Gay Marriage" is to Dem politicians what "Carbon Offsets" are to Algore and other Gaian worshippers. Little acts of contrition purchased to balance out all their other sins. If only Larry Craig had voted the other way, people like Offside would have no problem with his trolling among airport toilets, just like how they had no problem with their last president helping himself to his subordinates because he "kept abortion legal."

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.

By the way, I have further Craig thoughts here, for those not viewing this from the main page.

But I don't see why he's obligated by this accident of nature (and an unfortunate one, for him) to support others' political agendas, and betray his own principles.

betray his own principles ?

Which ones, the groping in men's room 101 principle?

Come on Rand, did you write this with a straight face?

How many ways can you say hypocrite ?

Of course I wrote it with a straight face. And whether or not he's a hypocrite is irrelevant.

The issue is whether he should be expected to vote on the floor of the Senate for gay marriage, when it goes against his principles. Just because someone wants to get it on in a public restroom doesn't meant that they should favor gay marriage. If you (and SFGate) think it should, please explain the logic.

Come on Rand, did you write this with a straight face?

Well, his gay face writes with a lisp.

I favor a broad right to contract that would include gays contracting that which would duplicate the legal marriage contract. I tend to disfavor 'gay marriage' for believing it will amount to little more than speech law. The little more could include big new requirements on businesses.

Voting for "Gay Marriage" is to Dem politicians what "Carbon Offsets" are to Algore and other Gaian worshippers. Little acts of contrition purchased to balance out all their other sins. If only Larry Craig had voted the other way, people like Offside would have no problem with his trolling among airport toilets, just like how they had no problem with their last president helping himself to his subordinates because he "kept abortion legal."

By the way, Offside, can you point out to me exactly in what way Craig is a hypocrite? All we know about him is that he's voted against gay marriage. Do you know something else about him that we don't?

But I don't see why he's obligated by this accident of nature (and an unfortunate one, for him) to support others' political agendas, and betray his own principles.

Right, he is no more obligated to support legalization of homosexual marriage than an overweight person is obligated to oppose weight loss programs.

Ideas should be evaluated on their merits rather than on the personal characteristics of their advocates or opponents. Unfortunately, this is a difficult concept for practitioners of identity politics to grasp.

Unfortunately, this is a difficult concept for practitioners of identity politics to grasp.

Oh, I don't think it's all that difficult for them to grasp. I think they could grasp it just fine, if their devotion to their victim identity status didn't create all kinds of cognitive dissonance for them.

Which assumes, I admit, that the necessary precondition for cognitive dissonance -- cognition -- is actually present. If it isn't, there'd be a lot of concepts they'd find difficult to grasp, most of them far simpler than the one Jonathan puts forth.

Like, for example, blinking both eyes in unison.

Craig voted for the Defense of Marriage Act - which isnt quite the same as voting against gay marriage. It's a vote for Federalism - allowing each state to make decisions for themselves.

To the best of my knowledge, he's never had the opportunity to vote for or against gay marriage.

Sex Offsets unfortunately work about as well as carbon offsets, and Packwood is the perfect example.

His votes on abortion helped to offset his groping as long as a Republican was in the White House and they needed his vote.

Once Clinton was elected, and the threat was no longer there, his sex offset votes counted for nothing, and it was off to the races on him.

I am old enough to remember when the cultural Left in general (and not just gays) ridiculed marriage as just a piece of paper. Now the cultural Left sees some value in that piece of paper. Interesting how times change.

I am old enough to remember when the cultural Left in general (and not just gays) ridiculed marriage as just a piece of paper.

Still true. FUD.

I'm convinced gay marriage is a secret plot by homophobes. I mean, marriage law is generally viciously predatory, especially towards men. What crazed fool would willingly put himself into those jaws if he didn't have to?

Far better to make some civil contract with respect to the assets, file cross-matching powers of attorney, whatever. At least contract law is largely based on rationality.

If it's just a question of being able to dreamily doodle "Mr. and Mr. Last Name" inside a heart on your cocktail napkin while waiting for Mr. OMG Could He Be The Right One?!!! to come back from the restroom during your first date, well...the political discourse has become more infantilized than I'd thought.

Saying Gays have to support Gay Marriage (I do) is like saying all women have to support abortion rights.

But the Left doesn't hate anyone more than a someone from a "protected class" who doesn't vote with them. Take it from me, I can attest to this.

There was one idiot reporter who even said that a certain Supreme Court Justice shouldn't be considered to be black because he wasn't a liberal. They wanted to deny the color of his skin (an objective observation) because he didn't tow the line.

I have said many times - it is easier to be a lesbian at a gun club than it is to be a gun owner in a group of gays and lesbians