HIV Transmission Laws

At first, I thought they were a good idea. In theory, it sounds good that should someone knowing transmit the HIV Virus to another person, they should be guilty of a crime. However, now that we have seen them in action, and see the way people respond to them – I’ve had to change my mind.

There have been a number of reasons for my change of heart. The first reason is that the laws just don’t have the effect they should. Too much is left up to interpretation. In some cases, they are too specific – in other cases, not specific enough.

In fact, calling many state’s laws HIV Transmission Laws is misleading because the laws have little, if anything, to do with the transmission of HIV. In most states, you are guilty of this offense if you put another individual at risk for catching HIV. Whether or not HIV was actually transmitted is beside the point.

And who decides what constitutes putting someone at risk for catching HIV? Georgia’s HIV Transmission Law was recently put to the test after an HIV positive man spit on a nurse. He was found guilty – even though HIV is not transmitted by spitting on someone. In California, several people have been charged with a felony for not disclosing their HIV status, even though the virus was not transmitted to them, and they remain HIV Negative.

Calling them HIV Disclosure Laws might be a little less confusing in some states, but not any better. In several states, even practicing safe sex with someone after disclosing your HIV status would still make you guilty of breaking the HIV Transmission Laws. In Georgia, this is still true even if both parties knew they were HIV positive before the encounter.

There are those out there (lawmakers included) who believed that passing HIV Transmission Laws would make people think twice about whether or not to disclose their HIV status before engaging in risky behavior. Where this notion came from, I have no idea. Since the passing of these laws, I have yet to hear a single person who decided to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners (or fellow drug addicts) because if they didn’t – they might be convicted of a crime. I really don’t think it’s a factor at all. The subject rarely, if ever, comes up.

The only times I have heard about the subject (other than in a magazine or newspaper) are by those people who are concerned about getting tested for HIV. HIV Transmission Laws scare the crap out of them. I don’t think that’s a common reason for people not to be tested, but it does play into their fears. There are already enough stigmas attached to being HIV positive – do we really need to add one more?

In California right now, there’s even another bent angle to this whole thing. Prosecutors there are trying (and appear to be winning) to convict a man who spread HIV to several women, even though he didn’t know he was positive. They suggest he should have known, even though he refused to get tested. If this succeeds, it makes me wonder what the next step will be … mandatory HIV tests for anyone even considering having a sex life? How well would THAT go over?

So, where did all these HIV Transmission Laws come from in the first place? They all date back to 1990, a time when the HIV situation was a lot different than it was today. (This was the time before we had any good medications, and the mortality rate was the highest it had ever been.) Congress added a provision to the Ryan White Care Act (which was taken back out in 2000) that required all states that received federal AIDS dollars to devise a way to prosecute those who knowingly expose anyone to the HIV Virus without warning them first. In 1990, having HIV (or AIDS) was a death sentence for more people than not – so it’s pretty easy to understand how these people could be charged with felony murder charges. Since the Protease Inhibitors hit the market in the mid 1990s, HIV is no longer a death sentence and most people with HIV are still able to go on living productive lives. Yet, in many areas, knowingly transmitting HIV is still equated with felony murder charges.

In my opinion, the best solution lies not within criminalizing behaviors, but in education and social responsibility. When I hear about someone who knowingly spreads a disease like HIV, my first thought is that this person must have some mental issues, not that the person’s a criminal.

Another thing I figured out was that HIV Transmission Laws only put the responsibility of “safe sex” into the hands of those who are HIV Positive. (Again, this is about social responsibility.) Never-mind the fact that it takes two to tango … if I agree to have unprotected sex with someone (regardless of whether or not they knew they were HIV positive) and get HIV – it’s not my fault. Right?

Wrong! Anyone who engages in risky behavior (be that unsafe sexual practices, sharing drug needles, or whatever) is just as culpable as their partners – HIV status has nothing to do with it. So why doesn’t the law reflect this shared responsibility?

It is clear to me now that these laws just don’t work. Is it time to change them? Maybe. Drop them totally? Maybe. All I know for certain is that if we don’t do something soon – we’re going to be up to our necks in this caca.

A. Hitler or A. Coulter - Do You Know The Difference?

Those of you who know me know that I think very highly of Ann Coulter. (Take that to mean that if I am thinking of Ann Coulter - I must be on some serious drugs.)

Today, I took a quiz, and failed miserably. I failed worse than Madonna's acting career. It was a simple quiz, really - I was given a series of quotes and had to determine if it was said by Ann Coulter or Adolph Hitler.

If you should take THIS QUIZ - please leave me a comment and let me know how you did.

Scratching The Surface On The Gay Marriage Debate

Something has really bothered me about all the gay marriage debating going on … Something … I'm just not sure what. Yes, there are a number of things that bother me (legal discrimination, religious intolerance, etc…) but there's been that one thing hovering just under the surface… It's like the pieces of the puzzle just aren't quite adding up.

In part, what I would like to know is why this is an issue? There are so many people out there who feel so strongly about their stance on gay marriage - I just want to know where that is coming from.

There are those that say that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Um … ok. I don't think this is true, but I can see how people could think this. I know my vision of God may be different than yours … and that's ok, because we have this nice thing called Freedom of Religion here in the US … and the things God wants from me is that I try to be the best person I can be, that I stand accountable for my actions, that I treat everyone with kindness and respect.

I'm starting to see this is a moot point anyway. First off, we're talking about legalizing gay marriage according to the Laws of the Nation (or State) - and not the laws of Churches. So, technically, God doesn't have much authority here. The gay marriage debate is about legal issues - not if the State or Nation is going to force your Church to start marrying same-sex couples. Once same-sex couples are allowed to get married, I expect a lot of Churches out there aren't going to start performing these ceremonies, and that's their decision to make.

The other reason I see this as a moot point is that those who make this claim are blaming someone else (aka God) for their own decisions. Rarely do I hear these people taking credit for anything. "God wants me to do this." or "Jesus wants me to do that." or "The Bible says…" and never, "I think this or that." If I wanted to know what God thought about something, I'd ask Him, not you.

Another issue that I have with the gay marriage debate is that there's little debating - just people stating This is the way it is, and then moving onto another topic. This is not a debate. A debate is, according to Marriam-Websters:

: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

A debate requires, by its definition, discussion. One side presents its point of view - the other side presents their side of view - and they discuss the differences. That's the key - discussion. I see few posts containing any intelligent discussions on the topic … like this one or this one.

There are those too who claim one of the important issues is that of procreation. Again - this is a moot point. Maybe, historically speaking, marriage and procreation were once related, but those days are far from over. If this were a serious reason people could not get married, infertile couples wouldn't be allowed to get married … marriages that did not produce children would be nullified …

If we were so concerned about marriage and procreation - why not stop with just gay marriage, but attack some other related issues as well. What about all those children born out of wedlock? Should we force them to get married? (Ok, maybe not. There's a lot of guys who've had children with several women, and that could lead to polygamy - so never-mind.) Why not jump on TV shows like Maury Povich that, if not glorify the situation, at least revel in it?

What about all those kids in Foster Care, Orphanages, or are otherwise awaiting adoption? Gay and lesbian couples still have difficulties adopting children, in part because they can't get married. And yet, part of the reason they can't get married is because people try to equate the issue that they can't raise children. Or, maybe they're afraid of what gay people will teach children?
Speaking of children - I would think that if we were really all that concerned about children, we'd spend more time focusing on teaching our children ourselves, and less about forcing others to teach our kids what we think they should be taught. Again - we're talking about responsibility, hunh? 

So … I ask you … am I missing something here?

Law And Disorder: The Murder of Kevin Hale…

There are many different stories, excuses, and theories about what happened on July 30, 2005 - it's hard to know exactly what happened. The official version of the events make no sense and has more holes than Swiss cheese. There are only a few facts that everyone seems to agree on.

What we do know is this: 36 year old Kevin Hale met two men in Durango, Colorado's Buckley Park. He did not leave the park alive. The two men were 21 year old Adam Hernandez and 24 year old Jason "Todd" Fiske.

Hernandez claimed he bore a grudge against Hale because he (Hale) had made a sexual advance earlier that evening. According to the police, Hernandez and Hale had long history of ill will. Fiske's confession claims that he broke up a fight between Hale and Hernandez by grabbing Hale in a choke-hold, but released him as soon as he went limp.

The Coroner eventually released his report saying that Hale's death was caused by cerebral anoxia - a lack of oxygen to the brain caused by compression of his neck. In other words, he was strangled.

If Jessica Fletcher or Perry Mason were investigating this crime, the show would be over. If this were an episode of Law and Order, this would be the point in the show where the police hand the case over to the District Attourney's Office. We know who did it. We know (kinda) how it happened. But, unfortunately this story is just beginning.

One of the first Law & Order twists involves the use of medical and psychological treatment records. Under normal circumstances, anyone's psychiatric and medical records (just like anything you tell your lawyer or priest) are considered off limits. But not in this case. Because the coroner used those records to help him determine the cause of death, the defense felt they should be entitled to that information as well. Those documents were delivered to the judge who ultimately determined that any information they contained had no bearing and no impact on the case at hand.

Part of the dramatic element would come from those who knew the people involved, or from the residents of Durango. "This sort of thing doesn't happen here," several of the townsfolk are quoted saying in the Colorado newspapers, often making a parallel to the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

The families of both parties have gone on the record through the local newspapers saying that they couldn't believe that Hernandez or Fiske could have done such a thing. Tamara Hernandez told the Rocky Mountain News that the idea her son could be involved in a hate crime was tearing apart her family, and saying that her son always told her not to "be a hater".

Yet those who knew Hale paint a slightly different picture. Larry DeVinny, Hale's uncle, strongly believes the crime was hate-related, saying that Hale had been "very openly gay" and had "endured a great deal of anti-gay harassment". DeVinny also related how Hale had expressed a lot of concern over one person in particular: Todd Fiske. Hale's mother also went on the record saying that Kevin had even approached the police eight months before his murder, complaining about Fiske (who he worked with at the time.)

The Colorado Anti-Violence Project and the Western Equality Organization released a statement about these events reminding us that when it comes to perpetrators of anti-gay hate violence, they will often claim that the victim had made a sexual advance at them, thus prompting the violent attack. It is "the oldest one in the book," they say. They also remind us that this is nothing more than an excuse for bad behavior, preying on the empathy of straight men who might panic were they hit on by a gay guy.

Both Fiske and Hernandez have also stated that drugs and alcohol played a part in that evening's events, which Hernandez's mother claims was "out of character" for him.

Hernandez pleaded guilty to manslaughter and theft charges in April and was sentenced to eight years in prison. He also broke down, pleading with the judge because he felt he "couldn't make it in prison", and apologizing for what he had done. The judge recommended him for a prison "boot camp" program, which could enable them to reevaluate his sentence in two years.

Fiske, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty, and waived his right to a speedy trial. A status hearing will be set for July 25th, 2006. Hale's uncle, Larry DeVinny is pleased that there will be a trial (even though a plea bargain is still on the table and the investigation is still ongoing) because he wants the truth of what happened that night to come out. He is certain by the end, everyone will know this was hate crime.

SOURCES

• The Rocky Mountain News
• The Denver Post
• CBS News (Denver)
• Colorado Anti-Violence Program

Did We Forget? Volume 2

Maybe the first one was too easy. Let's try this again. Let's see if you can figure out who I am talking about:

1. The circumstances surrounding this person's death directly lead to (and influenced) the Stonewall Riots, starting the gay liberation movement.
2. This person was dubbed "an Elvis for homosexuals" by The Advocate Magazine.
3. This person's father was gay. This person also legally married two gay men.
4. One of the stars of Grease 2 was this person's daughter, who later went on to do such shows as Trapper John M.D.; and making notable guest appearances in shows like The Nanny and Murder, She Wrote.
5. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the National Endowments of the Arts (NEA) both claim this person sung the Song Of The Century (1901-2000) - which happens to be one of the first gay anthems.

Any guesses who this might be?

Did We Forget?

Recently, I was talking with a friend of mine about gay history and was kinda surprised to learn how little he actually knew. There were quite a few people, who - in my humble opinion - he should have known, or at least been partly aware of - and when I mentioned their names or how they contributed to the state of local affairs, I was met by blank stares.

Are we forgetting our own history by not reminding ourselves (and not teaching our younger generations)about our past?

So, let me try a little experiment … let's see if you know who I am talking about.

1. This person was named as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Important People of the Century (1901-2000) alongside such names as Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Bob Dylan, Lucille Ball, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, Walt Disney, Wilbur & Orville Wright, Edwin Hubble, Princess Di, Rosa Parks, Anne Frank, Helen Keller, and Mother Teresa, alongside 84 other highly influential people.
2. This Person started out as a successful (and highly conservative) Wall Street Investment Analyst, and even supported Goldwater for President. In the 1960s, this person got involved with the Broadway production of Hair, which ultimately exposed this person to not only to the counterculture, but also took this person to San Francisco. Starting down a much more Liberal path, this person decided that her or his future resided in city politics. The first three attempts to get elected to public office, however, were rather unsuccessful.
3. One of the producers of Superman, Returns is currently filming a movie about this person's life and death, slated to be released sometime in 2007. This person's death was the focus of a Dead Kennedys song. An indy-rock band named themselves after this person. The San Fransisco Opera performed an opera based on this person's story and also released a recording. A documentary on this person won an Academy Award. A film released in 1999 (based on a play from 1983) also tells this person's story.
4. This person was assassinated, murdered in cold blood. The murder had just resigned from his city counsel position before a gay-rights ordinance was introduced, which he strongly opposed. He asked for his position back, but was denied by the Mayor. The murderer went to great lengths to kill this person, covertly entering the building concealing a gun with extra ammunition, shooting this person first in the chest, and then once this person was down, shooting in the head, again, at close range. The killer also murdered the Mayor before he killed this person. During the trial, the jury was composed only of anti-gay people who would be more sympathetic to the killer, and less sympathetic to the victims. The killer claimed he didn't premeditate the murders, and it seems the jury believed him - finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility (eating too much junk food) - sentenced to a mere seven years, eight months. He only served one year of parole before he committed suicide in his wife's garage.

If you think you know who I am talking about - leave me a comment! I'll let you know if you were right.

Corky McGraw reviews The Omen

Corky's Rating: 4 Stars 

Last night, I went and saw The Omen. I thought it was pretty good. Better than I expected, in some ways, and yet … kinda lacking in others.

Unfortunately, sometimes I just get into a certain mindset and its hard for me to shake it. In the recent past, they've started to remake a lot of the old horror classics. They've done a new (ok two new) Exorcist movies. They've remade The Stepford Wives as a comedy, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has been remade and a new prequel is being released later this year. The Hills Have Eyes (remade) - The Wicker Man (remaking) - House of Wax (remade - and Paris Hilton gets a pole through her head, YEAH!) - The Haunting was remade - The Fog was remade - are they running out of new ideas for Horror Movies?

One of the things that I liked best about this movie was who was in it. Seriously, when The Manchurian Candidate guy hires the woman who gave birth to Rosemary's Baby (aka Rosemary) as a nanny … or when he and the Harry Potter Werewolf guy goes to visit Dumbledore to find out how to kill the kid … although what they should have done was asked one of those Tabloid Reporters because he'd have known for sure, considering he played Damien in the original…

I had to stop there - I was starting to confuse myself.

Like other recent remakes, this movie is a slightly updated version of the original. For example, the film uses the death of Pope John Paul II, September 11, Hurricane Katrina, and other recent catastrophes as signs of the Armageddon.

Unlike other recent remakes, the movie doesn't require the use of too many special effects, and doesn't need to scare you with too much gore. Yes, there is some gore and special effects - it's hard to decapitate the paparazzi without a little gore, for instance… it's the characters (or the actors who play them) that can really creep you out. The evil nanny just needs to smile politely at you to give you the shivers.

I gave the movie a 4 Star rating because I felt the movie was pretty well made, well acted, and beautifully shot. It pays enough homage to the original without going overboard - and tells you a good story with just the right ammount of everything, other than maybe Julia Stiles' acting ability. 

Yahoo! It’s Gay Pride Month!

Yahoo! It's Gay Pride Month! And when I say "Yahoo!" I'm not talking about jumping for joy, but … you know, the search engine, start page, news service, messenger company … you know, Yahoo!.

One of the latest features Yahoo! offers is its Gay Pride Page (http://events.yahoo.com/pride06/). and it is billed as your one stop shopping area for all things having to do with gay pride. On this page, you'll find links to gay blogs, Pride Parade pictures, information on which city is having their Pride Parade when and where, and so much more!!!

Gotta hand it to those Yahoo! people… WTG guys!

What Is Destroying The Sanctity of Marriage?

How many times have we heard that legalizing gay marriages would destroy the sanctity of marriage? There are those out there who speak those words over and over, like it was some mantra. I have yet been offered an explanation about why this would be. I can't even come up with a single way that allowing gay marriage would have any impact at all on heterosexuals.

So I pose this question: If anything is destroying the Sanctity of Marriage - what would that be?

The first thing that comes to my mind is divorce. What better way to destroy marriage values than to promote divorce?

According to the Center for Divorce Reform, half of all marriages will end in divorce if the current trends continue. Whatever the current statistic is varies from report to report, so it may be impossible to determine exactly what the current divorce rate is.

The Barna Group (who'se main goal is to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States) has released some interesting information as well. One of their findings is that one third of adults "Calls it Quits" - and that number is the same for both Christians and non-Christians.

It's also interesting to point out that CNN also reported on Nov 12, 1999 that the Divorce Rates are highest in the "Bible Belt" states. They also published that Nevada had the absolute highest divorce rate, but Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma rounded out the rest of the top five. To explain this, several ideas were raised, such as that younger people are getting married in these states, household incomes are lower, or that certain factors common in Protestantism may also contribute.

Nevada being the divorce capitol (or so it seems) may be so for a couple of reasons. First, because it's so easy to get married there - and fun! Where else can you be married by an Elvis impersonator or by a Roswell-looking alien guy? But, in Nevada, its also easier to get a divorce. Stay for a short time to get your local residency, file a few papers and pay a small fee - and BAM! You're not married anymore.

When someone like Britney Spears gets married in Vegas to some high school chum just because they think it'd be fun to get married - only to turn around the next day and file for divorce - how is that not mocking the sanctity of marriage? Why did I not see a single person complaining that Britney was contributing to the decline of marriage values?

But its hard not to notice that today's society also has a much more relaxed attitude toward divorce than in earlier times. A couple has grown apart … a couple wants to spend more energy on career and less on family … it's no big deal - couples get divorced all the time! How many times have we laughed when Ivanna Trump said (about divorce) "Don't get mad. Get EVERYTHING!"

So then what are the biggest reasons people are getting divorced? After doing a few Google searches, I have found a lot of conflicting data. But, that isn't to say that there aren't certain trends. (One report may say that adultery is the leading cause of divorce while the next says the leading cause is irresponsible attitudes on the part of either spouse. I even found one page that says adultery doesn't cause divorce. Other top factors (depending on who you listen to) may include physical or emotional abuse, addictive personalities (alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc.), family stress, career concerns, or medical concerns (mental health, physical well-being, terminal illnesses, etc.)

I am starting to understand that this is a moot point, anyway. Can I blame my job for my divorce if my career is more important to me than my spouse? Can I blame my nagging mother in-law or my screaming kids if my family life is just too stressful? If my spouse gets some terminal illness or starts having a mental breakdown, it's not my fault we filed for divorce? Yeah, I know traditional marriage vows include the phrase "in sickness and in health" but I thought that just meant the common cold … Right? Or, it says "for better or worse" but it didn't say I had to deal with in-laws, his gambling problems, or how he leaves the toilet seat up or farts in bed … right?

(When it comes to things like abuse, however, I do think divorce is par for the course. Abuse escalates … and is more of an issue of personal safety.)

In my opinion, the leading cause of divorce (and the main factor of what is destroying the sanctity of marriage) is our ability to blame something other than ourselves for our mistakes, and our inability to take full responsibility for our behaviors, thoughts, and actions.

No. That can't be it. So, who else can we blame? Oh, yeah - I know! Those damn homosexuals who want the same legal benefits that we married people got.

25 Years Is A Really Long Time

Monday, June 5th, 2006 - marked the 25th anniversary of the start of the AIDS epidemic.

Looking back over the past twenty-five years - in some ways, it seems like we've come a long way; in other ways, it seems like we're still standing at the same point.

Twenty-Five years ago, nobody knew anything about what was happening, but they knew it was going to be something big, something major. It started with a report from the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) about five gay men with Pneumocystis Pneumonia. Pneumocystis itself wasn't new, but an outbreak of people who shouldn't be getting it sure was.

Because it was thought, at first, that this was a disease plaguing only the gay community, at first, they called it GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). In 1982, the CDC began to realize that half the reported cases were from heterosexual, not homosexual men - they changed its name to AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.)

Throughout the first several years, nobody knew very much about this or why it was happening. They realized it was a sexually transmitted disease, but nobody had any idea what kind of virus it was or how to fight it.

Between 1985 and 86, researchers began working with a drug called Azidothymidine - which had initially been intended as a cancer drug, but failed the initial tests. When they started using the drug on HIV, it showed a lot of promise. On March 20, 1987, the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) approved the use of Azidothymidine (or AZT) for use against HIV, AIDS, and ARC (AIDS-Related Complex - a term we no longer use today but used to mean pre-AIDS illnesses.) In 1990, it was approved as a preventative treatment.

AZT, tho, was not the miracle drug that everyone hoped it would be, but it was a start. The side effects were terrible and the drug turned toxic at the levels it was prescribed at - yet it was still better than the alternative.

So - how far have we come since those days? A long way. We now know a lot more about HIV and how the Virus operates. We know how it enters the system, and what it does once it gets there. We've been able to map how it takes over the immune system.

In 1995, a new class of medications came out called Protease Inhibitors. This was really teh first breakthrough since the AIDS epidemic began. By as early as 1997, an AIDS Diagnosis was no longer a life sentence.

Today, 2006, we have even more types of drugs for use on HIV and AIDS. We are still using AZT (although at a much lesser amount, and in combination with other medications) and Protease Inhibitors, but now we also have Reverse transcriptase inhibitors, Fusion inhibitors, Integrase inhibitors, plus several new drug classes on the not-so-distant horizon too.

We have also learned how to deal with many of the AIDS-related conditions - such as Pneumocystis Pneumonia, Kaposi sarcoma, Tuberculosis, Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) colitis, just to name a few.

That doesn't mean that today there are no health worries with HIV or AIDS - only that we know more about how to prevent and treat these illnesses. We know more about how to fight the virus itself.

This also isn't to say that we still don't have a long way to go. We still have no cure. There are still quite a few unanswered (and unanswerable) questions.

While looking back at all the progress we've made, it saddens me to think that in other ways, we're no better off than we were twenty-five years ago.

Throughout the early years, we often heard about how HIV and AIDS was some form of punishment from God… God doesn't tolerate homosexuality. If you use drugs, Jesus isn't going to allow you to go to Heaven. You're only going to get this if you're immoral or do ungodly things.

It surprises me that even today, this attitude is still present. God doesn't punish anyone for having sex by giving them AIDS - just like He doesn't punish immoral New Orleans' people by throwing them a hurricane or two. And yet, this is what we hear when Fred Phelps and the Westburough Baptist Assholes (pardon my French) show up at the funeral for a (most likely heterosexual) soldier killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

Being open and honest about ones HIV status often leads to isolation. The HIV and AIDS stigma is just as bad now as it ever has been.

If you have HIV or AIDS, most people are still going to think you're either some perverted gay guy or some strung out drug addict. Many will even think its your own fault for getting this disease because if you didn't stick that needle in your arm or have sex with whomever it was that gave it to you - and if its your own damn fault, why should they care?

Even the gay community often turns its back on the HIV/AIDS Epidemic.

Granted, there are cities like New York City that offers so many options for HIV related housing, HIV related social services, HIV support groups, that it's hard to know where to start … and yet there are other cities that offer almost nothing. And the current political climate is only making this issue worse.

Barebacking (having sex without a condom or any form of protection) is big in the gay community right now. You can get barebacking videos at the local adult shops, lots of places have (private) bearbacking parties - it seems like you can see it everywhere. Do these people know this is exactly how you get HIV in the first place? Or is it just that they don't care?

You'd think we'd have learned to live with HIV by now - whether we have the disease or not. And that - that is why we still have a long way to go.

The Summer of Superheroes

When I was a kid, it was only the geeky kids with the taped glasses and pocket protectors who read comic books. Yes, there were a few exceptions; like Christopher Reeves as Superman, or Adam West as Batman…

Now … Now, I am seeing superheroes almost everywhere I turn. It'd hard not to walk down the street and see a billboard for Superman Returns; or turn on the TV and see a commercial for X-Men: The Last Stand. Sure - they make some pretty good action films with intricate fight scenes and lots of stuff that blows up. Our comic book superheroes are starting to reach a much more mainstream audience.

It seems like they are getting a bigger gay and lesbian following as well.

This week, CNN reported that DC Comics is in the process of reinventing Batwoman. She is still going to be mostly the same Kathy Kane character she used to be until she was killed off back in the late 1970s - but they wanted to give her a more unique personality. Part of this is going to be her coming out as a lesbian.

In the May 23rd edition of the Advocate Magazine, the cover story is How Gay Is Superman? To quote the article, "Superheroes — let's face it — are totally hot."
Of course, there's going to be quite a few gay men that are going to take notice when some Hollywood Hottie dons a spandex suit, cape, and flies around giving the audience some interesting camera angles.

Other than the obvious sexual fantasies (and with sites like HardHereos making it so damn fun) there may be just a little more to this than I first realized.

Comic books are usually (if not always) about the struggle between good and evil. Our superheroes are usually an underdog, or just some normal guy who suddenly finds himself with supernatural powers. More often than not, he's a loner - not the popular guy at school. Our superheroes also go through that phase where they realize that there is something different about themselves - something not quite right - something that sets him (or her) apart from the rest of the world.

I think many gay people can relate with that. Like Shirley MacLaine (Martha) said in The Children's Hour when all the townsfolk thought she was a lesbian, "I'm a freak. I have eight fingers and two heads." Gay people are often the underdog - often that kid sitting alone in the corner because he feels so different than everyone around him.

Yet somehow, our superheroes manage to save the day, and the Planet - and the townsfolk suddenly realize they aren't such a bad guy after all. Ok - sometimes.

The villains in the comic books are usually larger than life. Powerful, strong, smart, organized, and they often have special abilities or supernatural powers similar, and often in contrast to, our superheroes. Is it possible we're comparing ourselves again? When society looks down at us and tells us we're wrong or bad because of something we feel deep in the core of our being - when society tells us we're not normal, we're freaks - it's like we're up against that big monster or super-villain. Just one small gay guy battling one huge society?

So maybe we can relate with the comic books more than we realized. Who hasn't ever dreamed of having special powers - being able to read people's minds … having X-Ray vision … invisibility … able to fly or leap tall speeding locomotives …the ability to balence the checkbook … even that's pretty normal.

Then again - maybe we just like the spandex.