It appears to me that the discussion is mixing two entirely different premises here, lumping them together.

First is that we have a publicly elected official, one who has taken positions that indicate his feelings are that he represents strong family values, one that made public statements of condemnation against others for similarly "immoral" actions, including recommending impeachment for those who told untruths. He then demonstrates the hypocrisy in his world, as well as the sad denial of his actions. He deserves every single bit of derision for his hypocrisy, and he deserves to lose his job based on what he purports to represent to his constituency, as opposed to what his personal actions demonstrate now, and in the past.

Second is the argument as to whether the laws are enforced evenly with regard to homosexual behaviour as opposed to heterosexual behaviour. I would have to say it is clear that they are not, although I must tell you that I have been approached in restrooms in airports, as well as rest areas, and I was furious about such no class moves. While it is certainly a compliment that someone would find me attractive, whether male or female, when I am in the restroom trying to take care of private, biological needs, I want to be left alone. And if there is a problem in an airport bathroom, where else would the police stage their activities. Has the thought occurred to anyone that there had to be a problem for the police to be there.

As to Constitutional (shut up, Spaw!!) matters of unreasonable search, and entrapment, etc, those certainly should be looked at.

Mick