AIDS and Sexual Ecology 

 Here is a letter I had published in D-Magazine (Dallas, Texas) in December, 1985, during the AIDS panic. The court decision mentioned in this letter is the Fifth Circuit overturning Judge Buckmeyer in (Baker v. Wade 1982); that is, the Fifth Circuit is upholding the Texas homosexual-only sodomy law (eighteen months before Hardwick v. Bowers, which dealt with the Georgia law).

In his overview of AIDS in Dallas, Tim Allis (D, Sept. 1985) mentioned the Fifth Circuit's reinstatement of the Texas homosexual conduct law (21.06) and the circuit court's claim that "implementing morality" is a "permissible state goal." The bottom line of this matter is: If two adult people of the same sex love and are committed to each other, may the state or their community rightfully interfere with their relationship?

True, promiscuity in the male homosexual community was largely responsible for the amplification of AIDS once it was accidentally introduced. But does this mean all gay people may be considered "guilty" by association? I think the court should have explained how far it thinks the state may go to "implement morality"; it seems too conventional to let "Western tradition" cover up for irrational prejudice, from which the country has a responsibility to protect "different" people.

The gay community, however, must greatly reduce the incidence of all sexually transmitted diseases if it is to overcome the now legitimate fears of the public; educational efforts in the gay community are doing just that. I am afraid that the fear of AIDS will make otherwise reasonable people become determined to hunt down gay men and isolate them from their livelihoods and society. Individuals should remember that some things they do in private do indeed affect others. Sexual activity with multiple partners is not any more a guaranteed "right" than is drug abuse.