[Jim Noble]

There are serious public health issues involved here that in my estimation do fall within the Constitutional purview of the state.

Those public health issues (which are real) are IDENTICAL in the privacy of one's own home.

The real issue is that what Senator Craig was doing was disgusting and perverted. I'm not sure the law offers a solution in our time.

I'm certain the public health law doesn't.

[Billthedrill]

Those public health issues (which are real) are IDENTICAL in the privacy of one's own home.

No, with respect, they're not. Without getting more graphic than this thread deserves they're quite a bit worse if those acts take place in public.

The real issue is that what Senator Craig was doing was disgusting and perverted.

Really? What did he actually do? That's the problem here - he may have been (and almost certainly was) soliciting an anonymous homosexual tryst, but all he actually did was to make some signals that he was willing. As I stated, it is easy to legislate against the act, but expression of willingness to take part in it is not, I suggest, within the state's rights to prohibit lest the state decide to prohibit other speech as well. There are exceptions - sedition comes to mind - but when did we last see a prosecution, much less a conviction, for even that?

Being "disgusting and perverted" is not, in my opinion, a valid ground for law. It is certainly valid ground for expressing disapproval and shunning the individual, which is what I am fairly certain would happen in the next election should Craig be foolish enough to run.

[Minn]

Those public health issues (which are real) are IDENTICAL in the privacy of one's own home.

I don't know about that. How does one go about seeking anonymous sex in one's home?