Posted on 04/04/2006 1:03:56 PM PDT by SmithL
At a hearing in Los Angeles, the court will look into the legal consequences of a woman's claim that her husband -- a healthy person, by all outward appearances and his own assurances -- infected her with HIV.
Her lawsuit, in which she is seeking damages, raised issues that require the justices to weigh health concerns against the right of sexual privacy a quarter century into the AIDS epidemic.
One question the court will address is how much one spouse, or unmarried partner, is entitled to know about the other's sexual past as a safeguard against infection. Another is whether a partner who was unaware of his condition can be held responsible for infecting his mate if his past practices or health condition should have given him cause for concern.
The case has given rise to some unusually blunt language in written arguments to the court. In particular, a lawyer for the wife, identified only as Bridget B., minced no words in arguing that she should have been told about her husband's past sexual contacts with men before she "decided to risk her life by having unprotected sex'' with him.
"This is not a hooker and trick in some back alley -- or a sordid affair in a cheap hotel,'' wrote attorney Roland Wrinkle. "This was a formal marriage. How can the state protect a wife's contractual and property status in dealing with her husband, yet not protect her life?''
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
In NJ, marriage licenses no longer require a blood test. I am assuming the same is true in CA. Why for the life of me, I don't know? I guess it is because common sense is no longer very common...
I'm inclined to agree with this lawyer.
Worse, and AIDS test was never required. The blood test is for syphilus, in order to combat an epidemic that's long blown over.
Fudge-packers vote. And donate generously to political causes.
"[S]urveys have estimated that 4 to 5 percent of men and 2 to 3 percent of women have had same-sex sexual relations after age 18. Studies that count only people who identify themselves as gay or lesbian, however, come up with much smaller numbers: about 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women." —The New York Times"The friend who forwarded this to me noted that though homosexualists made up only 2 percent of the population, they were nevertheless a very powerful 2 percent. A group representing only one out of every 50 Americans has such social power, I think, because they represent an extreme of sexual liberty that thereby justifies more "normal" immorality, e.g., rampant heterosexual fornication. The secular straight world listens to them and promotes their cause because it is sexually libertine itself and knows that a world in which sodomy is normal is a world in which no one will think twice about fornication or even adultery." —David Mills
And yet, they don't legally get married, so their interest in marriage blood test laws is ... what, exactly?
They have lobbied for, and gotten, powerful restrictions on AIDS tests as part of their overall agenda. It's illegal not only for marriage licenses, but for employment or any other purpose. Under no circumstances can you legally perform an AIDS test without the consent of the person tested, and you can never compel an AIDS test. (Court orders being the only possible exception.)
The law is routinely violated, for example whenever a police officer is afraid you might have exposed him, he will usually compel you to get an AIDS test--either by misleading you into thinking you have no choice, or by surreptitiously having the test done on blood drawn for other purposes. Similarly, doctors will quietly test your blood if they're worried you might have exposed them.
The only way to know is to have medical evidence and hope your spouse remains faithful in the marriage, and doesn't take up risky behaviors like IV drug abuse. I would not be offended to be asked for STD test results and might insist on providing them this day in age.
The law might not be able to compel an AIDS test but there's nothing saying she could not have made it a condition of her entering the marriage, or if they were fornicating, before letting him in her bed. 25 years into the AIDS era (and longer with other STDs) and some people still don't believe it could happen to them. Remember Reagan: "Trust but verify."
Nah--that would make too much sense. Better to blame the rest of the world for not going out of its way to take care of this woman's interests for her.
Seriously, Mrs. Shalom did exactly that, on the grounds that I'd worked as a nurses' aide for several years and been bespattered with all manner of bodily fluids and secretions. Pleased to say I'm clean.
Well in this day and age, it is very rare to find a couple who haven't already been around the block and back before they got married. These tests would be largely useless as a result. If I had to guess, the wife was probably infected long before the marriage.
Monkeyshine, I will try my best to answer your statement without any condescension or irritation. You should familiarize yourself with the details of this case and learn about how HIV multiplies and is transmitted in vivo. If you take the time to do this, you will learn how long it takes to get to the level of viral count the husband displayed when he finally tested positive. Years- many years. Further you will discover how statistically impossible it is for a woman to infect a man with HIV. The wife has still not contracted AIDS, nor has she displayed an elevated viral titer.
I could get further into this subject so that you would know why I know this... but I won't.
I am aware how HIV spreads in vivo, but admit I don't know much about the case. I appreciate you not being condescending, and respect your confidentiality, but I don't see anything that contradicts my statement.
First, I was replying to the others about more generic blood tests. I was suggesting that its rare to find a couple who didn't engage in sex before they got married. Though in this case, I could be wrong, and maybe she was devout while he kept a formerly promiscuous life secret from her.
I am happy that at least she hasn't contracted AIDS and hopefully never will. But since you brought it up, at what point would she have found out from blood tests? If the tests were taken and he came up negative while the viral count was still low, the test would have been worthless - assuming she didn't have sex with him before marriage. Though the basic concept could be applied to unmarried couples or sex partners.
I'll have to read more of the case to find out what it's all about, but if he knowingly concealed AIDS or HIV positive from her, then he should be brought up on criminal charges. If he didn't know he had HIV, but concealed previous gay lifestyle from her, it would be problematic but I am not sure criminal.
Monkeyshine-
In fact he did have the disease before he married her- as evidenced in emails between he and other HIV positive males (many married) in S. Cal. There is an organized subculture that cares nothing for the women that they've brought into their lives to appear hetero. She became unknowingly involved in that subculture because he insisted he was "heterosexual" despite having a long history of sexual relationships with men. Rest assured as well, the names he wants to protect are high in corporations on the east and west coasts.
As details come out in this case, biology and circumstances will ensure that if justice is done, he will be in prison, and she will at the very least be vindicated.
Well that's just plain wrong. I can respect the confidentiality of people, I really don't care if someone is gay. Deceiving a woman for the purposes of having a beard is dispicable and of very low character, but again not criminal. Knowingly concealing a deadly disease and spreading it without care - esp in a conspiratorial manner - is criminal.
Too bad these other people couldn't have the presense of mind, or moral compass, to stay out of it and steer this guy in the right direction. If they knew he had HIV and intended to engage in sex with other people and did nothing to prevent him, or warn her (if they knew her) then I think it is criminal and they all should be charged for conspiracy before the fact to manslaughter. Their "stature in the community" be damned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.