Box Turtle Bulletin

Rethinking HIV Testing

There is no good reason for any American becoming HIV positive today.

Which is not to say that there are not a lot of very understandable explanations why an individual might become infected. Social pressures, education, self perception, culture, diminished self worth, drugs and alcohol, and even trusting the word of a careless liar all play their part in the instances and circumstances that lead to poor choices and HIV infection.

And so infection rates stay consistently high in the gay community, and astronomical in some sub-populations. A study of HIV infection rates in Chicago found infection rates of over 17%* of gay men in that city. When looking at subgroups, the statistics become even more troubling:

Thirty percent of gay black men in Chicago tested positive, the study showed, while Hispanics and white men had rates of 12 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively.

A quarter of blacks aged 18-24 tested positive. More than 37 percent of blacks aged 25-34 – the highest of any age group – tested positive. The numbers are similar to national figures.

These are rates of infection that are simply unacceptable. And there\’s no reason, no justification, for 37% of any ethnic or age group to be infected with a virus that is detectable and preventable. Considering the weath in this nation and the billions spent on bailing out bankers and car makers, that black gay men have rates this high raises hints of racism, homophobia, and elitism.

But there is an explanation, one that makes sense to me; these men didn\’t know they were infected. Half of the infected gay men – and two-thirds of infected black men – were unaware of their HIV status.

Why?

Because they didn\’t get tested. They were “worried about the result.”

I understand that worry about what it means to be HIV positive can be a strong disincentive to get tested. As long as you don\’t know, you don\’t have to deal with it.

But I think this report, like all those I\’ve seen from the AIDS establishment, misses a component that is present with every HIV test that I or anyone I know has taken.

It isn\’t just finding out whether one is HIV positive. It\’s also going to some clinic (when they are open), filling out questionnaires, being grilled about the intimate details of your sex life, and then sitting in a waiting room where you are sure everyone is staring at you before being called into an office and being told by a total stranger whether you have a life-changing disease and, if so, reporting your name to the government.

It\’s an unpleasant process. And frightening.

And I think it might be time to begin considering a change. I think it\’s time to consider allowing people to test themselves in the privacy of their own home.

I know there are strong objections to this notion.

There is fear that inexperienced users will make mistakes and get false conclusions from improperly handled tests. There\’s also fear that at-home tests would not be sensitive enough to assure accurate results or may be too expensive.

But the current oral swab tests are pretty darned easy. If some scared teenage girl who missed her period can pee on a swizzle, surely a gay guy can run a swab over his gums.

Also, the oral tests are over 99% accurate. And there\’s little reason to think that they would be significantly less accurate in one\’s home than in the clinic. And if we as a city, state or nation, can afford to pay the clinic administators to provide free testing, I’m sure we can come up with some scheme to get the prices on tests affordable by those who need them; it just makes economic sense.

I will concede that some guys will ignore the fact that these tests only tell you whether you were infected before a three month (or so) window. Some will assume that a negative test means “100% negative today”. But this is also a misconception that can occur in a clinic and can be mitigated by careful packaging.

But the biggie reason given for opposition to the public availability to HIV tests that one can take and home and get immediate results is that in a clinic setting those who test positive can get counseling.

I appreciate the need for counseling. I\’ve even argued the merits of this approach.

But it\’s not working, folks. There are still thousands of guys out there that have been infected and do not know it. And they are not going to come into your clinic to find out. And maybe, just maybe, it\’s because they don\’t want to be subjected to your counseling.

I have come to believe that many of these “I don\’t know” guys might know their HIV status if they were able to anonymously purchase a little kit at the drugstore, take it home, and know the results in 20 minutes.

Yeah, some will freak out. And panic. And there won\’t be a counselor in front of them.

But they will at least know their HIV status.

And if they were provided with the option to immediately call a hotline for information and counseling, they might do so. Or they could go to a clinic. Or go online.

But they would know. And there\’s a very good chance that they would not then go out and infect someone else.

And this approach would be useful not only to unknown virus carriers, but to those they come in contact.

I think that many a gay guy – or black woman – would say, “Yes, I know you say you\’re ‘clean\’. But put this in on your gums and get comfortable because nothing is in going in anything for the next twenty minutes.”

It’s is bound to reduce infections better than the “baby, just trust me” method.

I don\’t doubt the sincerity of those who wish to keep HIV testing in carefully controlled environments. And I am sure that some readers will object to this proposal, fearing that it would be a catastrophe.

And I\’ll even grant that I may be wrong. Perhaps allowing people control over their own HIV testing would result in more problems than it solves. Maybe I’ve understated some concern or forgot some consideration.

But with infection rates – especially unknown infection rates – as high as they are, it\’s time to look for new solutions. It\’s time to ask the question. And it\’s time to start the conversation over whether personal access to HIV tests could help bring down the incidences of unknown infections and help stop the spread of this disease.

– – –

* Though higher than our estimates of about 12% of gay men, this is consistent with our estimates. HIV infection rates in black gay men is far higher than other ethnic subgroups and with a population that is 37% African American, this skews the local average higher than the national average.

Addendum: This commentary does not attempt to address the specifics of the African-American community. I’m not qualified or adequately knowledgeable to address the exact circumstances leading to disparity in infection rates between ethic subgroups or to advance targeted solutions. Rather, this commentary seeks to start a discussion and new thinking about the lack of testing in infected populations of all races. For more information directed at HIV/AIDS in the African American community, see the Black AIDS Institute or the Minority AIDS Project.

Andrew Sullivan Talks about Dick Cheney and Barack Obama

Sullivan is particularly irritated (rightfully so) with the Obama administration’s foot-dragging on removing the HIV travel ban, which Congress approved last fall and former Pres. Bush signed into law. But Obama continues to enforce the last legacy of Jesse Helms.

Where Are Those NY Senate Votes?

New York State Senator Tom Duane says that he has the 32 votes necessary for passage of the marriage equality bill. But NY1 has polled the Senate and if Duane has the votes they aren’t telling:

Twenty lawmakers tell NY1 that they would vote “yes” on the bill, with 15 either undecided or noncommittal. The measure would need 32 votes to pass.

According to the NY1 tall, if only four more undecided lawmakers oppose gay marriage, the bill would fail.

You can see their count here.

Facebook Group Forms To “Kill Out Dem Batty Man”

Facebook has become a ubiquitous communications and organizing tool encompassing a whole range of topics. Many of the groups are based on entertainment, hobbies, religion and spirituality, history, politics — you name it. Even hate groups advocating the murder of gays and lesbians.

One such hate group with a Facebook presence is the “Kill Out Dem Batty Man” group. “Batty Man” is Caribbean slang for gay men. Most of the group members appear to be from Trinidad and Tobago, although the Jamaican person who tipped me to it identifies the patois dialect as Jamaican. The Facebook group is listed under “Beliefs & Causes.”

Facebook page for "Kill Out Dem Batty Man" (click to enlarge)

The Facebook group page itself runs counter to Facebook’s terms of service. You can report TOS violations  here. I’ve already done so. Almost all of the comments left on the page are universal in their endorsements of lethal brutality against LGBT people. Some of the messages left on this group’s wall include, “bullit gone lick up them bludclut battyman fi dead” (followed by the sound of a machine gun), “gun shots for all dem fucking guys………. they to [sic] fucking stink,” and “no batty men shud be on dis earth.”

The Facebook group pages carries the description, “this group not for faggits” [sic] — although it appears that one gay man from London refused to heed that advice. Thom protested, “But we throw such lovely dinner parties. Lots of love xx.”

There’s more at the Jamaican Forum for Lesbians, Allsexuals and Gays (JFLAG).

Update: Well that didn’t take long. Facebook took the page down sometime between 5:20 and 5:45 PST. We heartily commend Facebook for taking such swift action.

Does New York Senate Have the Votes?

New York Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith has said that he won’t bring the marriage bill to a vote unless there were enough votes to pass the bill. However, by some counts there are.

Albany Times Union:

At a noon rally in support of gay marriage, bill sponsor Sen. Tom Duane says there are the votes to pass, but would not elaborate. Smith and U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand also stopped by the rally.

Over the weekend, Capital News 9 reported that a Republican senator said there were Republican votes to pass the bill and that it should come to a vote.

Smith continues to state that his vote count does not predict success. Some question whether it is his vote count or whether it is his deal with Sen. Diaz that is causing him to block a vote on the issue.

Obama Issues LGBT Pride Proclamation

As far as I know, this is a first for a sitting president to acknowledge Pride month. (If I’m wrong, please correct me in the comments. Update: Commenter Ron points us to Clinton in 2000 and 1999.) This month is particularly significant as it comes on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, which is generally regarded as the start of the modern gay rights movement as a political movement.

In this proclamation, President Barack Obama touts his support for the U.N.’s call to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. He also reiterates his campaign promises — repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, support for civil unions and recognition of same sex couples, ending employment discrimination, increase support for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention — although he again ducks his previous commitment to repealing DOMA. It’s as if he wanted us to forget he ever promised to repeal it.

Update: It is now 9:30 pm EST, and this proclamation is still not available anywhere on the White House web site.

Click here to read Obama’s LGBT Pride Month Proclamation

Federalism and Cheney’s gay marriage identity crisis

Speaking at the National Press Club, former Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated his support for gay marriage at a journalism awards ceremony.

Despite expressing support for gay marriage, Dick Cheney said he opposes federal recognition of gay marriage. It is an issue that he believes should be “regulated … at the state level.”

This is essentially a federalist argument—and a seeming compromise.

But there is an inherent contraction in Cheney’s gay rights position: he supports [CORRECTED: does not openly oppose] the “Defense of Marriage Act,” which precludes the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in individual states. Before DoMA, federal recognition of marriages relied almost exclusively on the states, but this power was wrested from the states by the federal government in 1996, an inherently anti-federalist usurpation of state power.

(In fact, this is the central issue in a recent GLAD suit, filed in Boston, that challenges DoMA. GLAD is arguing that DoMA infringes on Constitutionally protected state sovereignty.)

For one to support gay marriage on a state-by-state basis—based on an appeal to federalism—and also support DoMA is unprincipled. Cheney’s silence on DoMA might be a pragmatic decision, a way of avoiding a national confrontation over gay rights. Maybe some of the inconsistency is a natural product of trying to reconcile his membership in one of the most virulently anti-gay administrations in recent memory while at the same time wanting, as parents do, for his children to be happy.

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Cheney Reiterates Marriage Support

Washington Post:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.

“I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. “I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.”

Update: Here’s the video:

Civil Unions Bill Dies in Illinois

It now appears that the Illinois House of Representatives did not vote on the Civil Unions bill before them. The session is over and civil unions are a dead, for now.

Nazi Comparisons

Scott Lively has earned his organization Abiding Truth Ministries an official SPLC Hate Group designation by making extreme (and bizarre) claims about gay people. Perhaps his best known is accusation that gay men were responsible for the atrocities of Hitler\’s Nazi regime. It is the subject of his book, The Pink Swastika.

Not finding fertile ground for extremist claims in the United States (and because there are too many Holocaust organizations that refute his smears), Lively finds a more favorable audience overseas. He exports his anti-gay fervor to places where political and religious establishments are welcoming of radical calls for oppression and persecution of gay people.

His latest efforts were in Uganda where, in a conference with Exodus Board Member Don Schmierer and ex-gay Caleb Brundidge, he called for harsher civil punishment of homosexuality and forced reorientation therapy. But his actions in Uganda open him up to ironic observations about who more closely compares to Nazi Germany.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton has noted some such comparisons

Scott Lively encouraged the Uganda church leaders to view the tiny gay movement in Uganda as related in some way to the same movement that propelled the Nazis to power in Germany. However, if one looks for similarities in rhetoric and policy positions, one can more readily find them by noting how the the goverment in power then in Germany and now in Uganda regarded homosexuality. InThe Pink Swastika, Lively discounts the Nazis\’ public rhetoric and policies as a means of distracting attention to the homosexuality in the ranks of Nazi leaders. What could the same rhetoric and public policy objectives mean in Uganda?

Dr. Throckmorton is not really trying to suggest that Uganda\’s actions are Nazi-like. Rather, he\’s pointing out that “those who want to make sinister linkages between Nazi Germany and gay people must be prepared to explain why more obvious similarities, such as noted here, are not indicative of equally nefarious intents.”

I suspect this logic will be lost on Lively.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Nevada Legislature Overrides Domestic Partnerships Veto

The Nevada Assembly voted 28-14 to overturn Gov Jim Gibbons’ veto of a bill to allow domestic partnerships in Nevada for same-sex couples. This vote follows Saturday’s successful 14-7 override vote in the Senate. Nevada now becomes the 17th state to recognize the relationships of same-sex couples. The new law will allow domestic partners to have the same rights as married couples in matters such as community property and responsibility for debts. It also prohibits discrimination against domestic partners.

It’s been a bad year for Gov. Gibbons. With the domestic partnerships bill joins eleven other overrides to make Gov. Gibbons the most overridden governor in Nevada history.

Nevada Senate Votes To Override Domestic Partnership Veto

The Nevada Senate yesterday voted 14-7 yesterday to override Gov. Jim Gibbons’ (R)  veto of the Domestic Partnership bill. The bill had originally passed 12-9.

Two Republicans changed their vote to override the governor’s veto. Sen. Dean Rhoads (R-Elko) changed his vote after reciving  e-mails from heterosexual couples interested in Domestic Partnerships for themselves. He also was swayed by lobbyists from the casino industry on behalf of their employees. Also changing his vote was Sen. Dennis Nolan (R-Las Vegas), who had received many calls that were “ugly, vulgar and threatening messages” from people who oppose the bill.

The bill now goes to the Assembly, which had approved the measure 26-14. The bill needs two more votes in order to override the veto.

College Removes “Accidental” Sexual Orientation Protection

A college in Western Pennsylvania has edited the non-discrimination policy that had been posted on its web site for nine years after denying health insurance to Andrew Doherty, who had married his partner in Massachusetts:

Since 2000, Westmoreland County Community College has published notices saying the school will not discriminate against individuals based on various circumstances, including their “sexual orientation” and “union membership.”

But the school now says there is another statement that does not contain those four words and that it is the only one approved as an official policy by college trustees — in a 1998 vote.

So the college has begun the unusual task of striking references to both classes of people from its non-discrimination language, including a statement on the college’s Web site.

When Doherty’s claim for medical coverage for his spouse was denied, he complained to his union. Meanwhile, the college quietly deleted the references to “sexual orientation” and “union membership” from its web site. College President Daniel Obara said they will also be removed from the course catalog for the 209-10 academic year, where it has appeared every year since 2000. Obara claims that the terms were added by a former employee without his knowledge. That employee denied Obara’s claim.

Doherty’s grievance against the college is still pending.

Claiming the Antichrist Will be Gay can Make You Look Like an Idiot

Tim LaHaye’s popular Left Behind novels are a series of fictional tales about the lives of those in the battle of good v. evil after The Rapture takes place and Jesus calls all the saved Christians to Heaven. His archvillian, Nicolae Carpathia, is the Antichrist, the world leader who declares himself God and fights against the forces of Jesus Christ.

As an anti-gay activist and author of the homophobic screed What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality, it’s little surprise that LaHaye makes his Antichrist the son of pernicious Satan-worshiping homosexuals.

But now a Baptist pastor in Alaska has gone LaHaye one better. Believing that “there is no greater sin against God”, he naturally jumped to the conclusion that the Anti-Christ himself will be gay.

But will the Antichrist be a homosexual? Having seen what the Bible says of sodomy, we have no further to look than the book of Daniel, chapter 11 to find our answer. It says, “Neither shall he [Antichrist] regard… the desire of women….” As I said at the onset, I am not the first to draw attention to this, but the verbiage is clear.

Ron Hamman, pastor of the Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla, has written a Religion View in his local paper, the Frontiersman. Poor Hamman, if he weren’t from Sarah Palin’s home town, no one would pay him much attention. But having set himself up for mockery, it’s only fair that I point out that Pastor Hamman is nearly biblically illiterate as well at intellectually challenged.

Many readers will just laugh or wonder why we are wasting time on this story. But I’ll give Pastor Hamman the courtesy of responding to his great announcement on his own terms. And it is on those terms that Hamman’s argument fails. Miserably.

Perhaps unknown to Hamman, “the verbiage” he’s quoting wasn’t written in English. And though it truly is clear, it doesn’t support his rather irrational assumptions.

Hamman, like many a conservative preacher, only trusts the King James Version of the Bible. So his source for the quote above is Daniel 11:37.

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

We’ll assume for a minute that Hamman is correct in believing that this prophesy of Daniel refers to the apocryphal character known as the Antichrist. We’ll even set aside the irony that Daniel was a eunuch and suppose that “not regarding the desire of women” could mean homosexuality.

But Hamman forgot about context. And original meaning. And the fact that this verse was written in Hebrew. Had he just taken a second to go online and check another translation, he would have realized that this had nothing to do with sexuality at all. Rather, all of what “the king” was magnifying himself above were gods. Here’s the same verse, in the context of the surrounding verses, from the New International Version.

36 “The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.

Alas, poor Hamman. Had he gone to Divinity School, or picked up any study reference, or discussed it with any literate Christian, he would have known that he was basing his entire claim on a misreading of a single verse taken out of context.

Now he just looks like an idiot.

Illinois House Vote on Civil Unions Tomorrow

The vote on Civil Unions in the Illinois House of Representatives will take place tomorrow, the last day of session. Currently there are 70 Democrats and 48 Republicans in the House. The Governor supports the bill.