 | Drummond (60)
02/20/2006 |  I have mixed feelings about these laws - passed by then SF mayor Diane Feinstein at the height of the AIDS crisis. She may have saved tens of thousands of lives, as the SF bathhouses was a gathering point for numerous reckless anonymous encounters. It was a borderline emergency.
On the other hand, it goes back to the question of consequences to third parties. Yes, it put a burden on public resources when these individuals couldn't afford to treat themselves for AIDS. But then, similar resources are caused by people who smoke, drink, eat too much fast food, don't exercise, drive carelessly, etc. Why single out homosexuals?
Shutting down the bathhouses slowed the spread however, long enough for the gay community leaders to initiate education programs which effectively slowed the spread of AIDS dramatically, and in fact seemed contained until the late 90s when a new generation of would be Peter Pans decided they weren't going to be pressured into using condoms or restrict behavior in other ways. Seems to have levelled off again.
Yes, the ordinances suppressed civil rights. But the city had a compelling interest in health and safety that probably outweigh those concerns. And it's not like they couldn't have sex anywhere else. It simply shut down a very sexually prolific business practice.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
