Oriol R. Gutierrez Jr.

In 2010, Olympic champion Greg Louganis told People that he wanted to be on Dancing With The Stars. According to People, he danced as a child and was teased about it. "It would be a blast," Louganis told the magazine.

Somewhere along the way, a Facebook page -- "We want Greg Louganis on Dancing With the Stars" -- was created to encourage the popular celebrity-driven show on ABC to cast Louganis in the next season.

The supporters of the Facebook page got POZ to tweet in support. They even got Perez Hilton to lend his support.

Coming out twice -- as gay and as HIV positive -- is never simple, and it was exponentially more difficult for Louganis. Breaking the Surface, his autobiography, gives a heartwrenching account of the troubles he faced in the coming out process.

I admit that I'm not a regular viewer of DWTS, but I do know that the show appeals to many LGBT folks. And some LGBTs have actually appeared on the show (Chaz Bono, Carson Kressley, Margaret Cho, Lance Bass).

That said, to my knowledge, no openly HIV-positive celebrity has been on DWTS. Louganis would make a great addition to the cast on his own merits, but being a representative of the HIV/AIDS community would make his addition to DWTS that much more special.

So, how about it DWTS? This upcoming season of Celebrity Apprentice will have three celebs fighting to earn prize money for HIV/AIDS groups. DWTS, you have an opportunity to one-up Celebrity Apprentice. Wouldn't that be its own reward, DWTS?!

To read the POZ cover story of Louganis, click here.


Oriol on:

The extreme religious right in the United States often uses HIV/AIDS to scare their faithful into submission. Don't repeal the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents HIV, which causes AIDS, they say. Make your gay kids straight, they say, because if you don't your kids are going to get HIV, which causes AIDS.

Obviously, I disagree with their point of view. That said, I do agree with them about one thing -- HIV causes AIDS. That small common ground didn't seem like much, until now.

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association (AFA), which calls itself "one of the largest and most effective pro-family organizations in the country." However, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group, calls the AFA a hate group. Among many other distinctions, AFA is well known as an anti-gay group.

Fischer hosts the talk radio show Focal Point on American Family Radio and writes for the AFA blog Rightly Concerned. In a video clip from his program posted by RightWingWatch.org that I ran across at the LGBT blog Joe.My.God, Fischer comes out as an AIDS denialist.

Watch the clip:


In the clip, Fischer claims that researchers invented HIV as the cause of AIDS so that they could get funding. Then he asks Peter Duesberg, a longtime AIDS denialist, what really causes AIDS. His answer is that recreational drugs and promiscuous sex are to blame, not HIV.

In his blog, Fischer doubles down on his new AIDS denialist beliefs by claiming that Magic Johnson is "healthy as a horse" because HIV does not cause AIDS.

In 2011, Fischer compared gays to Nazis -- literally. In 2010, he said we were "stuck with sexual deviants" in response to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Fischer is undoubtedly a homophobe.

However, embracing AIDS denialism takes his homophobia to an all-time low. To stick it to the gays, Fischer now promotes pseudoscience. Advancing pseudoscience is always dangerous, but in this case, it's mostly just sad.


Oriol on:

In his 1987 book Freedom Under Siege, current Republican presidential candidate and U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) wrote this about people with AIDS: "The individual suffering from AIDS is certainly a victim, frequently a victim of his own lifestyle, but this same individual victimizes individual citizens by forcing them to pay for his care."

In a January 1 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Paul was asked if he still supported that position and basically said yes. Wallace then asked him if people with AIDS should be denied health insurance. Paul said no, but he directly implied that people with AIDS should pay more for their health insurance.

Paul points out that smokers are often asked to pay more for their health insurance, which is true. What he fails to see is that the smoking comparison doesn't really apply. Should the people who did not acquire HIV through unprotected sex pay more? Most people who acquired HIV through unprotected sex (like myself) did not intend to be harmed. Most people who smoke do so fully aware of the health risks. By Paul's logic, it seems to me that he should be in favor of higher health care costs for all people who have had unprotected sex.

Paul's beliefs notwithstanding, perhaps the most appalling thing in this interview was how Wallace asked Paul about health insurance for people with AIDS: "Congressman, do you think someone who suffers from AIDS should not be entitled to health insurance as opposed to, let's say, somebody who has a homo, heterosexual transmitted disease?"

Wallace committed many no-nos with this question. On style, enough with the "suffers from AIDS" phrase, please. Saying "has AIDS" is sufficient, thank you very much.

Just to back up my annoyance, here's the entry on AIDS from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) stylebook:

AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, a medical condition that compromises the human immune system, leaving the body defenseless against opportunistic infections. Some medical treatments can slow the rate at which the immune system is weakened. Do not use the term "full-blown AIDS." Individuals may be HIV-positive but not have AIDS. Avoid terms such as "AIDS sufferer" and "AIDS victim" because they imply powerlessness. Use "people with AIDS" or, if the context is medical, "AIDS patients."

On substance, Wallace made an even more egregious error. By saying a "heterosexual transmitted disease" (I'm sure he meant "heterosexually"), he directly implies that HIV is essentially a gay thing. His slip up of including "homo" before "heterosexual" seems to underscore this belief.

Obviously gay people are disproportionately impacted by HIV/AIDS, but the virus does not discriminate by sexual orientation. Wallace should know better. All journalists should know better.

Watch the interview (AIDS comments begin at 3:08):


Oriol on:

POZ cover boy Andrew Sullivan has posted another HIV-related video in his "Ask Me Anything" series on his blog, The Daily Dish. These videos give him an opportunity to personally respond to reader inquiries.

Previous HIV-related videos asked him "When did you find out you had HIV?"; "Other than HIV drugs, what do you credit with your longevity with the virus?"; and "How has your HIV status influenced your politics?"

In his current video, he's asked: "What did you think of Reagan's response to the AIDS crisis and what's your view of him in general?" Sullivan is critical, but supportive.

Watch the video:
 

Here are excerpts from Sullivan:

"He failed on AIDS in many ways in terms of leading, in terms of naming this, and rallying the country to do something about it. And that remains, I think, a blight on his record ... But there's a sort of Kushnerite view that Reagan killed us all, which is just usual Kushnerite crap. I mean, this is a man who wanted to inject the Rosenbergs into the AIDS crisis through that ridiculous play of his Angels in America. They wanted to believe this was created by Reagan, that he was a Hitler and there was a Holocaust. No, he was the president and there was a plague, which nobody knew how to stop ... I don't think he can be held responsible for the deaths of people under that virus ...

"I loved the man and I still have great fondness for him. I think he was a decent, civil, cheerful, optimistic and inspiring figure. And I don't take any of that back whatsoever. He did traffic in some of the aspects of the right that I think have become more concentrated and poisonous  now, and he bears some responsibility for that. But he also basically restored this country's faith in itself at a moment when it was truly in serious in self doubt ... Remember, too, he was a Democrat before he became a Republican. I think that helped him form his ability to reach more people than the current crew of clowns and idiots."

I am a big fan of Angels in America (I can't stop watching whenever the HBO miniseries pops up on TV), so I can't relate to Sullivan's extreme distaste for it. However, I do understand his point that no one man can bear the blame alone for such a catastrophe as AIDS.

It's this line that really bothers me: "I don't think he can be held responsible for the deaths of people under that virus." Reagan did not himself physically transmit HIV to people, but I find it hard to believe that his lack of leadership did not contribute to those deaths.


Oriol on:

Pastor Phillip Lee, founder and executive director of the "ex-gay" His Way Out Ministries of Bakersfield, Calif., wrote an op-ed in the Sunday, Dec. 4, edition of The Bakersfield Californian linking gays with AIDS. Lee is HIV positive and claims to no longer be gay.

From his op-ed:

"While AIDS is not solely a homosexual disease, the disease was confined almost exclusively to homosexuals in the beginning years of the epidemic in the United States. I personally witnessed this horrific tragedy unfold while living in San Francisco, having several personal friends die of AIDS at the beginning stages of what is now a pandemic. Tragically, the reality and threat of AIDS has not stopped men from engaging in unprotected sex and the continued risk-taking by many does not appear to result from a lack of awareness.

"There is, therefore, little to no evidence that homosexual practice can be anything other than a severe threat to the sanctity of life. That said, all efforts should and must continue to better understand and find a cure for AIDS and AIDS-related diseases. However, if the sexual behavior that is fundamental to most homosexual practice constitutes the primary means of transmitting such disease, then it only makes sense for society to do all it can to decrease such behavior, which ultimately protects the sanctity of life."

Advocate.com has posted this statement from the newspaper's editorial page director Robert Price explaining the decision to run the op-ed:

"We thought Phillip Lee's perspective as a 'former homosexual' who happens to be HIV-positive, and who lost several friends to AIDS, gave him some standing on the issue, dubious and antiquated as his views might have been. We also thought our consistent editorial positions on gay rights would mean something here...

We do publish opinions we don't agree with ourselves. When we choose to do so, we are almost always pleased to see perspectives of dubious merit answered thoughtfully by others in the community, with the result being a more complete understanding of the issues. I am certain that is happening in this case...

We have already published several letters in response to Lee's op-ed (some also taking us to task for publishing it in the first place) and will publish several more, and we have invited GLAAD to write an op-ed on the subject. Our original thinking here was that we wanted to encourage some conversation on this topic. Well, I guess we succeeded."

The pastor's belief that AIDS justifies suppressing homosexuality--which I completely disagree with--is beside the point in this situation. Anti-gay forces have been using the "gay equals AIDS" equation since AIDS became a pandemic 30 years ago. And they still are today.

What I find little patience for in this situation is the decision by the newspaper to publish the op-ed in the first place.

Being HIV positive and having lost friends to AIDS makes Lee no more qualified to be allowed to advance his "gay equals AIDS" rhetoric than being HIV positive and having lost friends to AIDS would make someone qualified to be allowed to deny HIV causes AIDS.

I doubt that the newspaper would have allowed Lee a platform to deny HIV causes AIDS (at least I bloody well hope so). I see no difference.


Oriol on:

POZ cover boy Andrew Sullivan has posted another HIV-related video in his "Ask Me Anything" series on his blog, The Daily Dish. These videos give him an opportunity to personally respond to reader inquiries.

Previous HIV-related videos asked him "When did you find out you had HIV?" and "Other than HIV drugs, what do you credit with your longevity with the virus?"

In his current video, he's asked: "How has your HIV status influenced your politics?"

Watch the video:


He says not much, with two big exceptions--a deeper understanding of both the need for health care reform and the repeal of the HIV travel ban.

He goes on to say: "What HIV has taught me spiritually, emotionally, psychologically, far exceeds its impact on my political thinking." Indeed.


Oriol on: