I just do not understand the idea of being gay and at the same time denying it and voting against anything having to do with it. Bigotry rules!

If one actually reads this article, one will see that all the accusations are something like "sometime in late 1986 or early 1987" or "between march and september of 1993." The Statesman then goes on to say it's checked Craig's travel records and the article is legitimate because the accusations "can't be disproven." They fail to note they can't be proven either. Is that the standard we want in journalism? Something can't be proven, but we're going to go ahead with it anyway because a former male escort is more credible than a U.S. Senator, even though he has no proof and can't even remember what month or year something happened? The Statesman - or the Oregonians - could write an article like this about anyone.

You mean there's a difference between a story that's plausible and one that's actually true?

....a former male escort is more credible than a U.S. Senator...

You're kidding, right? Have you listened to the audio tape of his conversation with the undercover police officer in Minnesota?

John, that anyone may be subject to a gay witch hunt is why gay rights laws usually protect people who are "perceived to be gay". Even effeminate straight men deserve civil rights. Just another reason why "straight" men like Craig should vote for equal rights.
Interestingly, he claims to be the victim of profiling. That's why profiling is a poor law enforcement technique, as well as a poor journalism style.