Box Turtle Bulletin

HIV and Friends, Part 2 — Is an Undetectable Viral Load Safe?

The Swiss seem to think so:

The Swiss National AIDS Commission said patients who meet strict conditions, including successful antiretroviral treatment to suppress the virus and who do not have any other sexually transmitted diseases, do not pose a danger to others. …

The Swiss scientists took as their starting point a 1999 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which showed that transmission depends strongly on the viral load in the blood. The Swiss said other studies had also found that patients on regular anti-AIDS treatment did not pass on the virus, and that HIV could not be detected in their genital fluids.

“The most compelling evidence is the absence of any documented transmission from a patient on antiretroviral therapy,” said Pietro Vernazza, head of infectious diseases at the cantonal hospital of St.Gallen in eastern Switzerland and one of the authors of the report.

I have seen a few references to this hypothesis in medical journals — I call it a hypothesis because I haven’t ever heard of a study to test the hypothesis — but I’ve never before seen anyone go out on a limb to say that unprotected sex with someone with an undetectable viral load is safe. And I won’t. As I understand it viral loads can fluctuate for a variety of reasons, including if the person has the cold or flu or any other temporary illness.

I normally wouldn’t even comment on this hypothesis except it has now appeared in the mainstream media. If I were you, I’d demand a whole lot more proof before changing any behaviors. My advice here still stands.

Update: The CDC has responded to the Swiss actions by reiterating their previous recommendations.

See also:
HIV and Friends, where we discuss the ethics of revealing someone’s HIV status and the pernicious role stigma plays in the assumptions surrounding those living with HIV/AIDS.
HIV and Friends, Part 3 — Where Ignorance Rules. If the Swiss believe that HIV isn’t contagious under certain conditions, a Judge in Ontario believes HIV is so dangerous it can be transmitted simply by sharing the same courtroom with someone.

HIV and Friends

This commentary reflects the opinions of the author, and is not necessarily those of the other contributors of Box Turtle Bulletin.

Last Friday, BTB contributing author Daniel Gonzales wrote a controversial post objecting to some advice given on the gay male hookup site “Manhunt.” (By the way, I think that post marks the first time an author on this humble site has ever linked there, but that’s beside the point.) The advice was in response to this question:

So, my friend “Dave” has HIV and when he met my other friend “Steve” sparks flew. I debated if I should tell Steve that Dave was positive but decided not to. Later that night Dave and Steve went home together and when Dave told Steve he was positive things came to an abrupt halt and now Steve is no longer speaking to me because he thinks I should have said something. Was I right to keep my trap shut?

Manhunt’s sex-advice columnist Michael Alvear’s responded:

I would have told “Steve” that “Dave” was HIV+. Why? When philosophy meets reality, logic flies out the window. If I’m asked to choose between an abstraction like personal responsibility and the well being of a close friend, I would rather be intellectually inconsistent than emotionally tortured. I’m not passing judgment on you because there are good arguments on both sides. The only person who needs a wake-up call is negative Steve. He gave up a night or maybe a life with an awesome guy just because he’s HIV+? What a schmuck.

Daniel called that advice “bogus”:

Remind me never to make friends with Alvear if I contract HIV.

A person’s HIV status is their own business and their own business only. I’ve been in situations similar to this and never for a second considered disclosing someone else’s status.

The response in the comments was quite varied. And privately, I’ve gotten a few e-mails from readers who are very puzzled by Daniel’s reaction. One asked if we’ve lost our collective minds. Well, yes and no. The topic of HIV/AIDS tends to do that. Since some have questioned our credibility because of that post, I want to take some time to address this question in detail and throw my two cents worth in.

This particular situation calls for everyone to examine this from three sides: Steve’s responsibility, Dave’s responsibility and Bob’s responsibility. Who’s Bob? Well, the letter writer doesn’t have a name, so I’ve named him Bob.

Steve’s Responsibility

Let’s recap. In a nutshell Steve is Bob’s friend, but he’s mad at Bob because Bob didn’t tell him that his other friend Dave was “poz,” or HIV-positive. Steve’s furious that because Bob didn’t warning him ahead of time, Steve didn’t know until Dave was “poz” until Dave told him, bringing everything to an “abrupt halt.”

I think we can all agree with Michael Alvear on one point at least: Steve is a schmuck, but for a more serious reason that Alvear cites. Steve’s a schmuck because he’s denying his own irresponsible behavior while trying to make Bob the scapegoat.

Look at what happened. Steve was about to have sex with a someone he had just met that night, and he was going to do so without having “the conversation.” And it appears that Steve decided to call everything to “an abrupt halt” only because he got the “wrong” answer from Dave when Dave brought it up. Ironically, the “wrong” answer just happened to be the honest-to-God truth about Dave’s HIV status.

If there ever was a case of playing with fire, this is it. What if instead of honest Dave, Steve had found another really hot guy that he decided to go home with, someone who Bob didn’t know. And what if no conversation took place? I have a sneaking suspicion that nothing would have come to “an abrupt halt.”

But let’s say that Steve is only slightly less than a schmuch and initiated the “the conversation,” and in that conversation Steve got the “right” answer because this hot guy lied about his status? Would Steve have brought everything to an abrupt halt then?

Or what if that hot guy just assumed that he’s negative because he’s never been sick and never been tested? According to the CDC, nearly one million Americans are infected with HIV, but about a quarter of them don’t know it.

Or what if that hot guy was honest and thought he was really HIV-negative because he just got a negative test result last week? That negative result may not mean he’s actually HIV-free. The truth is, it can take from a few weeks to several months before an infection leads to seroconversion in some people, and it’s that seroconversion which produces a positive result.

All we know is that Steve changed his behavior because Dave gave him the “wrong” (but honest) answer. But given all the possibilities in this situation, Steve is playing a dangerous game no matter what anyone else might say or do. Before anyone casts any stones towards anyone else, we really need to place the responsibility for Steve’s health squarely where it rests: with Steve.

Dave’s Responsibility

But just because the primary responsibility rests with Steve, it doesn’t mean he’s the only one who should be concerned. And in this story, it turns out that Dave is the hero in the story. He made sure “the conversation” took place and gave Steve the information he should have asked for. At least we know that there’s one responsible person in this whole scenario. He deserves a heaping helping of recognition, and everyone who is in this situation needs to follow Dave’s example. It’s tough though for a lot of reasons, so I have a whole lot more to say about Dave. So stick around, because I’ll come back to Dave after I deal with Bob, since he’s the focal point of the whole controversey.

Bob’s Responsibility

So now we come to Bob. The guy caught between his two friends, Dave and Steve.

I wish Bob had explained why he decided not to tell Steve about Dave’s HIV status. I’ve thought about it, and can only come up with three possible legitimate reasons: 1) that he was confident that Dave was a stand-up guy and would do the right thing, or 2) that he thought that Steve was a stand-up guy and would do the right thing, or 3) that it wasn’t any of his business.

On the first point, Bob was right. Dave is a man of integrity who did the right thing. Maybe that’s why Bob and Dave are friends.

But on the second point, Bob was seriously wrong. Steve was a complete idiot. Does that mean Bob should have spoken up? Maybe so, and he can do it without disclosing Dave’s HIV status. But given Steve’s reckelessness, Bob might be taking on more responsibility that he can reasonably handle, since he’d probably feel obligated to speak up regardless of who Steve is about to go to bed with. With Steve’s dangerous calculation, how on earth is Bob going to keep him out of trouble?

So what about the third point? Is it any of Bob’s business?

My view aligns somewhat with Daniel, that it is none of Bob’s business — generally.

We all know that matters of health are very sensitive, so much so that we demand confidentiality between the patient and his or her doctor. I think we can all instinctively understand that this confidentiality is important. And so as a general rule, I think we can understand that maintaining confidence about someone’s health status is generally wise.

It’s the party line in the poz community that one must never ever ever never reveal someone else’s health status. But that’s the thing about party lines. Party lines which leave no exceptions, generally speaking, aren’t always wise. There needs to be room for exceptions.

The question has been asked, does privacy trump safety? I think the question sets up a false dichotomy. If I were Bob and I believed that my friend Dave would actually lie about his status, and I believed that my other friend Steve was too much of an idiot to take care of himself no matter what Dave might or might not say — then yes, I would probably feel obligated to say something. But that doesn’t mean I have to reveal Dave’s HIV status.

But if Steve were such a complete idiot there was no other way of getting through his thick skull, then yes, if pressed, then I might. But remember, in this very limited scenario, I believe that my friend Dave would lie about his status (and why would I protect that behavior?) and that Steve is stupid and utterly irresponsible. Which means that I’d also have to dump both friends and look for a much better class of friends.

I know that’s crossing a party line, but sometimes party lines beg to be crossed. But in the end, I’m no more capable of protecting Steve than anyone else. Ultimately, it has to be up to him.

But there’s another point to be made here. The issue has been raised that Bob had no business discussing Dave’s health status. But I’d also point out that Bob had no business assuming that serodiscordance between Dave and Steve should be a deal breaker.

Serodiscordance in couples — where one partner is HIV-positive and the other is negative — is not terribly uncommon. There thousands of couples all across the country, both casual and serious, who are “poz/neg” (I hate the term “serodiscordant”; it sounds too, well, discordant). The fact that Dave and Steve are of a mixed serostatus doesn’t mean sex is inherrently dangerous for Steve. It just means that they need to take measures to keep from passing HIV on. This isn’t always easy, but thousands of couples somehow manage. Besides, the fact of this particular couple’s being poz/neg shouldn’t trigger any change in behavior on Steve’s part anyway, since Steve needs to protect himself no matter what anybody says or doesn’t say.

But if Steve considers serodiscordance unacceptable — and he has every right to establish whatever boundaries he chooses (again, I’m treading on another party line) — then that just means he has a special obligation to raise “the conversation” as early as possible. After all, doesn’t Dave have a right to know he’s about to waste an evening with someone who considers it a deal-breaker? If Bob knew that serodiscordance was a problem with Steve, then if anything he probably should have pulled Dave aside and told him, “hey, Steve’s not going to go for this.” But I don’t see anyone making that argument for some reason.

I think Bob did the right thing in this particular scenario. With a different scenario, maybe Bob might feel compelled speak up. Since this is something of a judgment call, I wouldn’t come down too harshly on Bob if he had said something — although I’d be very critical if he unnecessarily disclosed Dave’s HIV status. But I strongly disagree with the notion that Bob bore a moral responsibility to do so.

So to those who say “I would want to be told”: if you really want to be told, then ask — and take the answer with the appropriate grains of salt. That’s the only way to protect your health. No one else can protect it like you can. Even if Bob were inclined to freely blab about who’s poz or not, he won’t always be around.

Let’s Talk About Dave Some More

Remember Dave? In the responses to Daniel’s post, both public and private, few seemed to notice that it was Dave — the poz guy who posed such a terrible threat to poor unsuspecting Steve — who showed responsibility by forcing “the conversation.” For some, it’s almost as if the poz guy is virtually guaranteed not do the right thing. That because he “did something wrong” to get infected, then he’s going to keep doing something wrong to pass it on.

Ever since five gay men died in Los Angeles in 1981, people with HIV/AIDS have been a frightening abstraction. AIDS is certainly frightening. It’s commonly believed to be a fatal condition, but that’s no longer true. Thanks to modern medicine, AIDS has moved from being a fatal disease to a chronic one, much like diabetes. It is still a very serious, complicated and life-changing condition (like diabetes), it still causes a lot of health problems in virtually every organ of the body (like diabetes), it still ultimately results to a lot of deaths for too many people (like diabetes), and it remains incurable (you get the picture). And like modern-day diabetes, AIDS is often acquired due to poor choices that one makes in life — but also like diabetes that’s not always the case.

AIDS differs from diabetes in two distinct ways. First, AIDS is communicable and diabetes is not. And secondly, unlike diabetes, AIDS carries a very special stigma more than twenty-five years in the making.

Well there’s a dirty secret we’re not supposed to talk about, so I’ll cross yet another party line. It’s the stigma that surrounds HIV/AIDS within the LGBT community. In February 2006, Cari Courtenay–Quirk and colleagues published a study in the journal AID Education and Prevention titled, “Is HIV/AIDS Stigma Dividing the Gay Community?” In short, the answer is yes. One poz participant talked about the taboo that has developed among some:

I think people support you to a certain extent, and then they kind of back off from you. It’s like taboo to them. So on the one hand, they’re always there to help and they’re concerned, but when it comes down to getting to know you, if they’re not HIV–positive, then it’s different. There’s some sort of block there.

The stigma surround HIV/AIDS often keeps HIV-negative men from talking about it, much like Steve in our story. Another study participant noted:

They are afraid of being involved with somebody who has it or being attracted to somebody who has it and then risking getting it themselves. And it’s a lot of just not wanting to think about it, and so please, don’t bring it to my attention. Let’s not talk about it, and, you know, we’ll be fine.

That very same stigma can reach everyone regardless of HIV status. Several years ago, I decided it was time to shed a lot of excess weight. When I did, I experienced reactions similar to this one:

Nobody knew his status. And he chose not to tell anyone. And I would hear like a lot of little remarks because he started losing weight, you know. And it wasn’t in a sort of nice way. I don’t know, but catty gossip, you know? Like, so yeah. I think that sometimes you can find prejudice among your own people.

There is considerable stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS, and it’s not just heterosexuals who are responsible for it. The difficult truth is that it is alive and well within the LGBT community. And because of this stigma, many people with HIV/AIDS remain in a second closet, fearful that if their secret gets out they will lose friends and family and even their homes and jobs. The stigma also affects people who are not living with HIV/AIDS, including even AIDS volunteers and health care workers. People living with HIV/AIDS who have experienced this stigma are more likely to be non-compliant in mantaining their health regimens, and they are less likely to reveal their serostatus to their prospective partners and friends. Stigma has even been cited as a critical factor in why some people put off getting tested or treated.

I’ve personally seen the HIV/AIDS closet in action. In cities where there is less stigma attached to HIV/AIDS, people talk more freely and openly about themselves and their health. They have come out of that second closet. But in other places, having HIV/AIDS is treated as a deep dark secret which can be disclosed to no one. Not even to their close friends like Bob.

As long as HIV and AIDS are the topics for gossip, intrigue and condemnation, there will always be those who would just rather hide than make themselves known. That’s human nature, and as gay men you’d think we’d be more sensitive to this dynamic that we’re creating. All of us, positive and negative, have been there with regard to our sexuality. Yet we are setting up the same forces with HIV/AIDS.

No matter how responsibly Dave carries himself for the rest of his life, it appears he will still judged by his HIV status. He is often looked upon as a dangerous predator out to infect the poor innocent Steves of the world. This notion that Bob needs to go around warning all the Steves of the world about Dave just provides more fuel to that attitude. It’s time for Steve to finally grow up and be a man.

So Steve, leave Bob alone. He can’t keep you safe. Only you can do that.

Schmuck.

See also:
HIV and Friends, Part 2 — Is an Undetectable Viral Load Safe?, where we examine the hypothesis of Swiss health officials who suggest that an undetectable viral load renders one virtually non-contagious.
HIV and Friends, Part 3 — Where Ignorance Rules. If the Swiss believe that HIV isn’t contagious under certain conditions, a Judge in Ontario believes HIV is so dangerous it can be transmitted simply by sharing the same courtroom with someone.

‘Family Guy’ to Explore Gay Gene and Ex-Gay Therapy

In an interview with the Advocate, Seth MacFarlane, creator of The Family Guy discusses an upcoming episode:

What can we expect from the as yet unscheduled episode titled “Family Gay”?

That has to do with Peter being injected with the gay gene as part of a scientific experiment to determine whether or not it’s a learned trait or something that you’re born with. The good news is that at the end of the episode we establish that it’s the latter. Basically, Peter’s in a gay relationship for an episode and winds up in one of those straight camps.

Undoubtedly this will be presented with their usual tact and unerring good taste.

Read the full interview here.

A Call To Artists

Beyond Ex-Gay and the Memphis Gay and Lesbian Community Center  have announced plans to host an art show, featuring works by “whose lives have been  negatively affected by the ex-gay movement. This could include former ex-gays, as well as spouses, children, parents, and friends of former ex-gays.

Organizers will accept submissions of all types of visual art: drawings, paintings, collage, mixed media, photography, or multimedea. They ask that you submit photos of your work to bxg (at) beyondexgay (dot) com for consideration. A panel will review your submission and contact you with further details if they’re interested in accepting your work. The deadline is Wednesday, February 13, 2008. The exhibition will be held in Memphis from February 22 to 24.

For more information, please see Peterson Toscano or Christine Bakke’s blog.

LaBarbera Babbles on about MRSA

Peter LaBarbera has yet further musings about MRSA. But because there’s nothing new and they really aren’t very interesting, I think I’ll just illustrate for you the limitations of my artistic abilities.

Video: Inside The Exodus International “Freedom Conference”

Last week Exodus debuted a youtube video advertising this year’s “Freedom Conference” so what better time for Box Turtle Bulletin to release the first few videos examining what went on at last year’s conference. Editor Jim Burroway attended and offers commentary on the use of camp humor, what it’s like to be “accepted as someone who’s gay and hates it,” and the struggle for those who can at best hope for a life of celibacy.

Trust me, you don’t want to miss Alan Chambers singing “Don’t Cry For Me Argentina.” I’m not going to say which video has that so you’ll just have to watch both of them.

Celibacy, What If Change Doesn’t Occur?

My Expectations Were Blown Away

No Mr. O’Neil, Boy-Rape isn’t “Gay Subtext”

The past year’s gay representation in mainstream Hollywood movies has been less than encouraging. So when the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) announced its nominees for Film-Wide Release there wasn’t much to pick from.

But Tom O’Neil, writing on the LA Times’ The Envelope website thought they missed one

One great film with a gay subtext got overlooked by other awards this derby season and deserved to be noted here, but wasn’t: “The Kite Runner,” which contains a controversial boy-rape scene. Why did GLAAD wimp out?

I’ve not seen the movie but I have read the book. Unless they greatly differ, there are no gay characters in this movie. (Spoiler Warning) There is one character that as a youth rapes another boy out of aggression and then grows up to continue molesting children, both girls and boys. There is nothing whatsoever that suggests that this character is attracted to adult males, nor would such linkage be admirable and deserving of recognition.

Suggesting that a rape scene is gay subtext that somehow would be awarded by GLAAD is beyond stupid and offensive. If you agree, feel free to let the Times know.

Dallas Morning News Religion Blog and “Gay Sex”

Jeffrey Weiss at the Dallas Morning News’ Religion Blog asks a very strange and confusing question: Does the FCC endorse gay sex?

Weiss reports that the FCC fined ABC Television for showing a woman’s naked buttocks, rejecting ABC’s claim that the said derrière is not a sexual organ. Weiss writes:

Um. The buttocks are (is?) a sexual organ? Without getting too specific for this blog, I can think of only one, um, activity for which that would be routinely the case. Is the FCC, well, endorsing that particular activity?

Well, the answer is easy: no, the FCC does not endorse it. Didn’t he notice the $1.43 million fine?

But more to the point, that one, um, activity isn’t “gay sex” necessarily.

The 1991 National Survey of Men, a nationally representative study of 3,321 men aged 20-39 in the United States (response rate: 70%), 20% reported having had anal sex with a woman at least once in the previous ten years. (Billy, John O.G.; Tanfer, Koray; Grady, William R.; Klepinger, Daniel H. “The sexual behavior of men in the United States.” Family Planning Perspectives 25, no. 2 (March 1993): 52-60.)

The 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, another nationally representative study of 3,159 adults between the ages of 18-59 (response rate: 80%), reported that 25.6% of men and 20.4% of women reported having had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. Furthermore, 9.1% of married men and 7.3% of married women reported anal intercourse in the past year. (Lauman, Edward O.; Gagnon, John H.; Michael, Robert T.; Michaels, Stuart. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994): Table 3.6.)

And in the 2002-2003 National Survey of Family Growth conducted by the CDC, 12,571 adults between the ages of 15 and 44 years of age (response rate: 79%) reported that 34% of men and 30% of women reported having had anal intercourse with the opposite sex. (Mosher, William D.; Chandra, Anjani; Jones, Jo. “Sexual Behavior and selected health measures: Men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002.” Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics no. 362 (Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2005): Table 7. Available online (PDF: 1,235KB/56 pages).)

In other words, there are more straight people doing that one, um, activity than gay people.

Dan Abrams On Heath Ledger’s Death

Dan Abrams did a great round-up and discussion on the homophobic reactions to actor Heath Ledger’s death.

Among the internet posts Abrams highlighted was this one, which has since been deleted from Yahoo! Answers:

The encouraging thing: all of the responses took the questioner to task for posing such a stupid question.

What I’ve Been Reading Online

I have my Google RSS Reader loaded with several score of blogs and web sites feeding me several hundred posts each day. It’s partly how I keep up with what’s going on. I’ve managed to collect a lot of interesting and boring links along the way. They are almost all North American, with a smattering of European and Russian blogs sprinkled in here and there.

There aren’t many gay blogs from Africa. But I ran across one, Gay Uganda, a few weeks ago. Whenever his posts pop up on my RSS reader, they always stand out for being the most lyrical of all the standard-issue blogs that flash across my desktop. Gay Uganda, who remains unnamed, waxes poetic (often literally poetic) about being gay in Africa, his life with his partner in Kampala, and the greater kuchu (gay) community there.

Sen. Barak Obama wrote a book called The Audacity of Hope. I haven’t read it, but I’ve always loved the title. Gay Uganda shows us how audacious hope can be. And along the way, he shows us what beauty is also.

Four Letters

That’s the rule. No more than four letters.

It may be an unwritten rule, but the rule goes that acronyms can have no more than four letters. I know some people push five. But for all practical purposes, if you can’t fit an acronym into four letters, then you need to re-think your acronym.

GLBTTQQI? We need to nip this one in the bud. The English language hangs in the balance.

Maryland Introduces Bill to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage – Are Democrats Committed to Equality?

Legislators in both the State Senate and the House have introduced bills to remove the gender requirement in state marriage law.

More than a fourth of state lawmakers have signed up to sponsor a bill that would legalize same-sex marriages in Maryland, the measure’s proponents announced today.

Although the bills have substantial support, they are unlikely to succeed. The leadership in both houses oppose the bills.

Gov. Martin O’Malley and House Speaker Michael E. Busch have said that they prefer civil unions. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller opposes both same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Maryland’s legislature is predominantly Democrat with a 33 to 14 advantage in the State Senate and 103 to 36 in the House. The leaders of both chambers are Democrats, as is the Governor.

The efforts today can probably best be viewed as an inter-party squabble, an effort on the part of some Democrats to force the hand of their leadership.

Although in control, the Maryland Democrat Party has done nothing to advance the rights of gay couples. They sat back after the state Supreme Court declared that gay persons are not equal under the Maryland Constitution and decided that it was just too soon and they are just too busy to find some measure of protection that they could put in place.

This will be an interesting case to watch.

The AP is currently reporting on the frustration that many gay individuals are feeling over the lack of courage on the part of Democrat Presidential candidates to stand up for equality. They quote Bay Windows editor Susan Ryan-Vollmar.

“They’ve merely settled on what the Democrats have staked out as a safe, consensus position, just far enough ahead of where the party was in 2004 to give a sense of progress but not so far as to threaten Middle America,” Ryan-Vollmar wrote. “That’s not leadership, it’s poll-tested and party-approved pandering, pure and simple.”

And some gay writers are starting to question whether Barack Obama’s flirting with the anti-gay black vote by embracing ex-gay Donnie McClurkin was all that accidental in light of his endorsement by Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell. Even his language used on Martin Luther King’s birthday which was often described as supportive of gay people spoke of “embracing” gays but not necessarily supporting their cause. Those of us familiar with anti-gay religious dogma are weary of “embracing” and “loving” that is not coupled with support for civil equality.

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee is being sued for anti-gay discrimination. Documentation released seems to suggest that the DNC may assume that it own the gay vote while showing contempt for the gay voters. (Queerty has a good synopsis)

As we told you earlier, a poll of Marylanders by the Baltimore Sun demonstrated that they overwhelmingly support civil unions or marriage for gay couples. So the legislature leaders cannot claim that the will of the people is not behind couple recognition.

In is into this sense of uncertainty that this bill is being introduced. And the Maryland marriage vote may well become a ‘put up or shut up’ moment. If the Democrats in the Maryland legislature defeat marriage equality without putting in place civil unions, gay men and women may become so disheartened that they question how much energy they wish to place in advancing candidates of a Party that takes them for granted. Gays may begin to ask if being “a bit better than the Republicans” is enough.

See also:
Blade Asks What Happened In Maryland
Maryland Passes Limited Rights for Gay Couples
Maryland Balances Budget by Taxing Gay Widows
Maryland Senator Muse Champions Bigotry
Maryland AG Endorses Marriage Equality
Maryland Legislator Calls Anti-Gay Bluff
Maryland Introduces Bill to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage – Are Democrats Committed to Equality?
Maryland Marriage Poll

Michael Alvear & Manhunt – Remind Me Never To Be Your Friend If I Contract HIV

The gay hookup site Manhunt.net has an in-house sex advice columnist, Michael Alvear. Here’s my summary of this week’s question:

So, my friend “Dave” has HIV and when he met my other friend “Steve” sparks flew. I debated if I should tell Steve that Dave was positive but decided not to. Later that night Dave and Steve went home together and when Dave told Steve he was positive things came to an abrupt halt and now Steve is no longer speaking to me because he thinks I should have said something. Was I right to keep my trap shut?

Columnist Alvear replies by quoting an exchange he had with NYC-based psychologist Dr. Brad Thomason in which Thomason takes the position it’s never ok to disclose someone else’s status. Alvear, however ends by stating:

I would have told “Steve” that “Dave” was HIV+. Why? When philosophy meets reality, logic flies out the window. If I’m asked to choose between an abstraction like personal responsibility and the well being of a close friend, I would rather be intellectually inconsistent than emotionally tortured. I’m not passing judgment on you because there are good arguments on both sides. The only person who needs a wake-up call is negative Steve. He gave up a night or maybe a life with an awesome guy just because he’s HIV+? What a schmuck.

Remind me never to make friends with Alvear if I contract HIV.

A person’s HIV status is their own business and their on business only. I’ve been in situations similar to this and never for a second considered disclosing someone else’s status. This bogus “advice” has no place on Manhunt, a site which appears to be concerned with promoting socially responsible sex practices.

For those interested here are some contact emails, support@manhunt.net, cruisedirector@manhunt.net, info@online-buddies.com

And if you’re so inclined, Manhunt’s phone number 866-424-9999, and the phone number for the company that owns Manhunt, “Online Buddies Inc” is 617-225-2727.

John Gibson Update

John Gibson continued to heap more insults on yesterday’s radio broadcast. But today, his tune has changed considerably for the better. “I’m sorry that some took my comments as anti-gay and insensitive. … Once again, to anyone offended by my comments, I’m sorry. But I’m also sorry that Heath Ledger is no longer alive and with us.”

We gave John Gibson the LaBarbera Award this morning for his comments mocking actor Heath Ledger’s untimely death. But now, even with this half-hearted non-apology “apology,” it looks like John Gibson has demonstrated himself to be a much bigger man than Peter LaBarbera, in whose honor the award was christened. I don’t think I’ve ever seen LaBarbera actually apologize — not even half-heartedly — for  much of anything.

Update, 1/26: Now that it’s a nice Saturday morning, I’ve had time to re-read this post and agree with the commenters. This isn’t much of an apology. I’ve updated the post accordingly as shown in italics.

New Mexico Moves Forward on Domestic Partnerships

The Las Cruces Sun-News is reporting that the New Mexico state House of Representatives voted to establish domestic partnerships.

The House approved the measure on a mostly party-line 33-31 vote. Two Republicans supported the bill and seven Democrats opposed it.

The state Senate has a Democrat majority (24 – 18) and if the vote mirrors that of the House, the bill could become law. It has the backing of Governor Bill Richardson.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the Senate would approve the proposal.

Although the legislature has chosen to use the language of “Domestic Parner”, a practice most common on the West Coast, the language of the bill provides that:

A. Domestic partners shall be entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded or recognized, now or in the future, by the laws of the state to spouses, former spouses, widows or widowers, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil or criminal law.

However, Domestic Partners do have to file state income tax returns under the same provisions as their federal income tax returns, i.e. as legal strangers.