Archive for April, 2011

Is California education FAIR?

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

Mark Carlson of the Lutheran Office of Public Policy brought me up to speed on this. Senate Bill 48, introduced last December 13 by Senator Mark Leno (D–San Francisco) is the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act, which would amend the California Education Code to include social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and prohibit discriminatory instruction and discriminatory materials from being adopted by the State Board of Education.

Senator Leno is introducing this bill on the Senate floor on Thursday morning. Go to http://www.calchannel.com and click on Live Webcast, Senate Floor Session. It’s not exciting television viewing, but it’s useful if you want to see how our legislature actually conducts itself. If you really want to see change, get involved by contacting your representatives and sharing your views on matters of public policy. To make it easier, download the Pocket Directory of California State Government from the LOPP web site.

Leno, who is openly gay, has been a responsible proponent for legislation that would not only benefit LGBT citizens of California but contribute to a social and political environment of authenticity, justice and understanding between people of all sexual orientations.

SB 48, by the way, has already passed the Senate Education Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee.  And for more background on this bill and a lot of other important pending legislation, I recommend Equality California’s web site, www.eqca.org.

—Dan Hooper

They don’t want my blood.

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

The news that the British ban on gay blood donation is being lifted is a mixed bag for us. The 365Gay.com story explains that the ban is being lifted because “the rule could be discriminatory and might breach equality legislation.”

My husband and I used to be serious blood donors (he more than I). When the AIDS pandemic hit and our blood was no longer wanted for fear we had HIV in our veins, we kept on donating for awhile by simply lying about never having sex with another male.

The truth was that we were entirely monogamous had had been for years, but that didn’t seem to matter to the rules governing the American Red Cross demand for our blood. It assumed that gay men were promiscuous or possibly had the virus, even at low levels, in our systems. America could not distinguish between monogamy and promiscuity.

Even now, the distinction in this British announcement is missing. According to journalist Andy Bloxham, “However, gay men will only be permitted to donate if they have not had sexual intercourse for a decade. Homosexuals who are or have recently been sexually active will continue to be barred from giving blood.”

Well I admit I have had sexual intercourse in the last decade. But the new policy apparently wouldn’t care that it has been with the same partner for the last three decades plus. And for the record, I have never had any STD in my lifetime. But I won’t be flying to Britain to be generous with my blood.

The real oddity of our own American blood policy (I haven’t looked into British law or policy) is that it seems to be crafted to give assurances to heterosexuals that they can’t get HIV from gay blood. Are we doing that for white supremacists to assure them they won’t ever be given a transfusion of African-American blood? Truthfully, assurances of purity really can’t be 100% ever.

Blood banks do not and cannot guarantee the purity of their blood supply. Although blood products are screened carefully, but HIV takes awhile to show itself in an infected person. You would think in the 30 years since this terrible pandemic began (June 1981) that blood-screening science would have improved as dramatically as the medicines to control HIV/AIDS.

Of greater concern is that America can’t seem to convince our youth that getting HIV/AIDS is a serious health problem, even while the older generations still fear getting it from blood transfusions. We have much work to do, for example, to educate people who engage in risky behavior. (Keep your eye on www.HollywoodRemembers.org).

I still believe that donating blood is a worthy cause and that it saves lives. As a generous person, I would still donate blood, but they don’t want it. Even as the science of blood purity struggles to improve itself, I don’t see American homophobia declining rapidly enough or law and public policy keeping pace with the change of either. And although our national blood supply is amazingly safe, too much bigotry still seems to flow in America’s veins.

— Dan Hooper