News
HIV/AIDS returning to the spotlight?
Following victories on marriage, advocates say decades-old issue will get renewed look

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
After years of being overshadowed by other issues like marriage equality and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” an issue that decades ago was at the center of the gay rights movement is once again moving to the forefront.
Following hard-fought victories for marriage rights at the Supreme Court, in states throughout the country and across the globe, the persistence of HIV/AIDS is grabbing new attention as recent news stories have documented progress toward a cure and the disease’s continuing impact on gay youth and people of color.
Sean Strub, founder of POZ magazine, said LGBT leadership is taking a renewed look at the issue in response to community pressure and stubbornly high infection rates among young gay men — particularly men of color — which he said are “skyrocketing and simply impossible to ignore.”
In the past week, two separate articles in the mainstream media were published following World AIDS Day that documented the persistence of the HIV/AIDS epidemic among gay and bisexual men.
One article, which appeared on the front page of the New York Times, reported the disease is “rapidly becoming concentrated” among poor, black and Latino men who have sex with men.
Jonathan Mermin, director of HIV prevention at the Centers for Disease Control, is quoted as saying reaching these men is “the Holy Grail” in confronting HIV/AIDS.
Although his agency has granted millions of dollars to local health departments, Mermin reportedly couldn’t identify any city or state that has succeeded in lowering infection rates among young men of color.
An op-ed published on CNN.com written by Perry Halkitis, associate dean of New York University’s Global Institute of Public Health, raised the question of whether there’s a “gay generation gap” with regard to the perception of HIV. Halkitis points to the growing rate with which young gay men have unprotected sex now that the disease is perceived as chronic, but not fatal.
“The disease may not be front and center — it may not be the primary presenting problem faced by young gay men, as it was for me at age 18 in 1981 — but it is a concern,” Halkitis writes. “However, it’s a concern that must be spoken about and dealt with differently for this ‘new’ AIDS generation.”
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men remain the most profoundly affected by HIV.
In 2010, an estimated 29,800 men were infected with HIV after having sex with another man — a 12 percent increase from the 26,700 new infections among this group in 2008. In 2010, men who have sex with men accounted for 63 percent of all new HIV infections nationwide.
At the same time as the disease gets renewed attention from the gay community, Strub said young gay men infected with HIV face new challenges — even though the disease is no longer a death sentence — because of the lack of solidarity with other gay men.
“People with HIV no longer inspire a sympathetic response from the public, especially not the gay public, but are more often seen and defined — particularly by the public health and criminal justice systems — as potential threats,” Strub said. “We’re living longer so we’re around to infect longer, viral vectors, potential infectors, an inherent risk to society.”
Meanwhile, advocates working on HIV/AIDS contend the issue has always belonged to the gay community, but is rising again in prominence for various reasons.
Richard Socarides, a gay New York Democratic activist, was among those predicting HIV/AIDS will “emerge as a major issue for the gay community.”
“Especially now, as a whole new generation of young gay men face issues relating to safe sex head on for the first time,” Socarides said. “But now in a context where ‘silence’ may not equal death but instead, a long-term chronic but treatable disease.”
Mark Mazzone, a spokesperson for the LGBT military group SPART*A, said he thinks HIV will come to forefront for advocates working on LGBT military issues in the wake of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act.
“I think this will return as an LGBT military issue simply because of the lack of education given to our service members and the high risk behaviors mostly younger LGB men engage in, which need to be mitigated through a comprehensive training and prevention program,” Mazzone said.
Mazzone said service members become non-deployable once they’re discovered to have HIV; can’t commission as an officer or warrant officer; can’t fly aircraft or work in any jobs requiring a flight physical; are restricted to stateside duty assignments (with the exception of the Navy); and are not eligible for special schools such as Ranger, Special Forces or other special ops jobs.
And the nation’s largest LGBT group says that it continues to make a priority efforts to bring the HIV/AIDS epidemic to an end.
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said HIV/AIDS has been and continues to be at the forefront for LGBT groups like HRC.
“Until the scourge is gone, fighting HIV/AIDS has, is and will remain a top priority for the LGBT civil rights movement,” Sainz said.
Strub said in recent months he’s seen HRC devote more attention to HIV/AIDS.
“I am heartened by HRC’s outreach to HIV advocates in the last several months and am cautiously optimistic we will see a greater commitment from them in 2014, on HIV issues, than we have seen in recent years,” Strub said.
One HIV/AIDS issue that has particularly risen in prominence is the HIV criminalization laws in some states. Under such laws, an HIV-positive person can face criminal charges for failing to disclose their HIV status before engaging in sex.
LGBT and HIV/AIDS advocates have railed against the laws, saying they send an inaccurate message regarding prevention responsibility, create a disincentive to receiving testing and may discourage disclosure of HIV status. According to Lambda Legal, 39 states have HIV-specific criminal statutes or have brought HIV-related criminal charges, which have resulted in more than 160 prosecutions in the United States in the last four years.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced on Tuesday legislation in the Senate known as the Repeal Existing Policies that Encourage and Allow Legal (“REPEAL”) HIV Discrimination Act, which would require an interagency review of federal and state laws that criminalize certain actions by people living with HIV.
“A disturbing number of state and local criminal laws pertaining to individuals with HIV/AIDS are rooted not in science, but in outdated fear,” Coons said in a statement. “They run counter to effective public health strategies, discourage HIV testing, and perpetuate unfair stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS – people who are our friends, family, and neighbors.”
In May, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced the House version of the legislation along with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). According to the Library of Congress, the bill has 37 sponsors, although Ros-Lehtinen is the only Republican co-sponsor.
In Iowa, the punishment for being found guilty of violating Code 709C can be imprisonment for up to 25 years and registration as a sex offender.
Donna Red Wing, executive director of the LGBT group One Iowa, said in the wake of securing marriage equality in her state, working with local HIV groups to repeal her state’s HIV criminalization law has become the No. 1 legislative priority for the organization.
“Over the years, I’ve been troubled that as the face of AIDS changes, fewer and fewer LGBT organizations are engaging in this struggle,” Red Wing said. “It seems like the right thing to do, you know? Because in the early days, if it wasn’t for our people, if it wasn’t for the LGBT communities, we would not be where we are today.”
Although the Iowa Legislature is no longer in session, Red Wing said efforts are underway to move forward legislation with lawmaker reconvene in January.
“We already have laws that deal with communicable diseases, and the fact that HIV/AIDS gets this special treatment and these enhanced sentences is so draconian,” Red Wing said. “A communicable disease is a communicable disease is a communicable disease, and there should be nothing special and no enhanced sentences for people living with AIDS/HIV.”
The potential for discovering a cure for the disease has also received significant attention amid new developments from the Obama administration as part of the goal of achieving an “AIDS-free generation.”
Last week, President Obama announced he’s redirecting $100 million over the course of three years at the National Institutes for Health to an initiative with the goal of developing a cure for the disease.
“The United States should be at the forefront of new discoveries in how to put HIV into long-term remission without requiting live-long therapies, or better yet, eliminate it completely,” Obama said.
A NIH official later clarified for the Blade the $100 million will be on top of another $60 million previously directed toward the effort and comes from grants for other initiatives that have expired at the agency.
But the prospects for a cure were dealt a blow last week, following media reports that two men who had hoped they were cured of HIV after bone marrow transplants found they still had the virus.
After the two men underwent life-threatening procedures intended for cancer, they initially were virus-free as of July in four months in one case and two months in another and stopped taking their HIV medication. But doctors announced last week that virus has reemerged in their systems.
Despite the reemergence of the virus in the systems of the two men, doctors said they learned from the procedure that even if you make HIV seemingly disappear, it can hide in the body — possibly held up in the organs and inside the intestines — and reactivate.
Strub said while efforts to eliminate the disease are important, changing the way society looks at HIV/AIDS should also be a priority.
“The advocacy needs are immense, but one of the most important — to which we in the LGBT community can contribute to greatly — is in reducing stigma by supporting and empowering people with HIV and refocusing on the human rights approach, rather than just a biomedical approach, to HIV prevention.”
United Kingdom
Queen Camilla meets with JK Rowling
Edinburgh meeting took place on last day of Pride month
Queen Camilla on Tuesday met with JK Rowling.
The Royal Family on X said the meeting took place at Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh. The post included a picture of Camilla and Rowling together.
“With a shared passion for books and a deep commitment to children reading for pleasure, The queen and author JK Rowling have met at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh,” it reads. “Her Majesty and Ms. Rowling discussed the importance of ensuring that young people have access to books and the vital part reading plays in opening doors for future generations.”
📕 With a shared passion for books and a deep commitment to children reading for pleasure, The Queen and author J.K. Rowling have met at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh.
Her Majesty and Ms Rowling discussed the importance of ensuring that young people have access to… pic.twitter.com/Yx1Xy6olqC
— The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) June 30, 2026
Rowling over the last decade has emerged as a vocal opponent of transgender rights. Her meeting with Camilla took place on the last day of Pride month.
Delaware
Delaware approves amendment protecting same-sex marriage
Measure must pass second vote in next year’s session
The Delaware General Assembly passed Senate Substitute 2 for Senate Bill 100 on the last day of the legislative session on Tuesday after being rescinded last week.
Senate Substitute 2 for Senate Bill 100 (SB-100) passed with 28 ‘yes’ votes, meeting the two-thirds threshold required for the bill to pass. Tuesday was the last day of the 153rd General Assembly.
The amendment would enshrine the right to same-sex and interracial marriage in the Delaware Constitution.
SB-100 was rescinded last week after it did not receive enough votes to pass. Democrats were short by three votes, with two Democratic members missing from the vote.
Rep. Josue Ortega (D-03) voted ‘no’ on SB-100 and Rep. Medinah Anton-Wilson (D-27) did not vote. However, both members voted ‘yes’ for Senate Substitute 2 for SB-100 on Tuesday.
Prime sponsor of SB 100, Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall (D-14), made the technical decision to change her vote last week from a ‘yes’ to a ‘no’ at the last minute to keep the bill alive.
Additionally, Republican Assemblyman Michael Smith (R-22) joined the Democrats with a ‘yes’ vote after voting ‘no’ on SB-100 last week.
In order for SB 100 to be enshrined into the state Constitution, it must be passed by two consecutive General Assemblies. Thus, the amendment will not be officially added to the Constitution unless it passes in the 154th General Assembly next year.
Rep. Snyder-Hall introduced the measure earlier this week.
“Just one week ago, we failed to pass this legislation. We failed the people of Delaware. But today, on the final day of the legislative session, the 153rd General Assembly affirmed that every Delawarean has the fundamental right to marry the person they love, regardless of race or gender,” said Snyder-Hall.
“Thank you to my colleagues for recognizing that the right to marry is a right worthy of protection and for voting yes on this important constitutional amendment.”
National
ACLU says trans athletes ruling is narrower than many believe
‘Narrow decision focused on the unique context of sports’
The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to uphold state laws barring transgender girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams represents a setback for transgender rights, but attorneys who argued the case say the ruling is considerably narrower than many initial reactions suggested.
Shortly after the decision was released, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union — which represented the plaintiffs in the case — held a press call to explain what they described as the limited scope of the Court’s opinion. While the ruling allows states to exclude transgender girls from girls’ school sports teams, they said it stops well short of creating a nationwide ban or dismantling broader legal protections for transgender people.
Joshua Block, senior counsel with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, said the majority intentionally confined its analysis to school athletics.
“[The majority] issued a narrow decision focused specifically on the unique context of sports. It didn’t issue a broader decision saying that Title IX in general didn’t protect transgender students. It didn’t say that other states couldn’t make a different policy choice and allow transgender girls to participate with cisgender girls, and it didn’t issue a sweeping ruling saying that under the Constitution it’s perfectly fine to discriminate based on transgender status.”
Block said one of the opinion’s most significant takeaways is that it leaves decisions about transgender participation in school sports largely in the hands of states.
“It leaves the rest of the legal rights of transgender people where the court found them.”
He stressed that the ruling authorizes states to adopt restrictions but does not require them to do so.
“It’s very important to emphasize that this isn’t a national mandate to ban trans athletes everywhere. It’s a fight that’s going to continue state by state, school by school … it really says that a state may discriminate, not that they must discriminate. States, schools, and athletic associations should be taking every step to ensure that athletic opportunities exist for transgender girls.”
Beyond athletics, Block said the opinion’s most important legal consequence may lie in its treatment of the Equal Protection Clause.
“What the court said is that even applying that heightened standard, we’re going to establish what’s effectively a new rule of the Equal Protection Clause, saying that you can’t bring this sort of as-applied challenge to a law that is valid for most people.”
Even so, he argued that the Court repeatedly framed transgender participation in sports as a policy issue for state governments rather than a constitutional mandate.
“Over and over and over again it talks about how states may exclude transgender girls, not that they must, and over and over and over again it says that this is a policy question that should be decided by the people in their different communities and their representatives.”
Block also rejected the idea that the ruling endorses the Trump administration’s broader efforts to restrict transgender rights.
“I have no doubt that the Trump administration will try to declare victory and say that this decision supports the lawless policies they’re pursuing, but I think anyone reading the decision can see otherwise.”
The White House nonetheless celebrated the decision, calling it a victory that would “protect women and girls.”
“The Court’s decision is a landmark victory for common sense, biological reality, and for the millions of women and girls who deserve a level playing field. By upholding laws protecting female athletic competition, the Court confirmed that states may preserve the fairness, safety, and equal opportunities that Title IX was enacted to guarantee.”
Medical researchers and LGBTQ advocates dispute the administration’s characterization of the evidence. A 2021 study published in the Journal of Sports Medicine found no scientific evidence for supporting these laws that categorically ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports.
Critics have also argued that enforcement of such laws could create new risks for athletes. Researchers have warned that sex-verification requirements may expose students to invasive examinations and discrimination.
A 2016 USA Today investigation found that at least 368 young gymnasts reported experiencing sexual abuse over a 20-year period. More than 100 coaches and gymnastics officials were accused of abuse, yet USA Gymnastics failed to track predatory coaches, allowing many to continue working with children. LGBTQ advocates argue that requiring athletes to undergo genital inspections or other forms of sex verification could place young athletes at even greater risk.
Advocacy organizations said the decision, while limited legally, will have significant real-world consequences for transgender youth.
Chris Mosier, a transgender athlete and board member of Point of Pride, said the ruling extends beyond sports.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today isn’t driven by fairness or dignity in sports. It’s an attack on our community’s right to live freely and authentically in every part of our lives. Young people, regardless of whether they’re cis or trans, deserve the joy of sports: to build friendships, to move their bodies and have fun on the field. To every trans athlete out there: you have a community standing behind you. No politician or law can take away your joy or power. We will get through this as our community has always done: together.”
Brian K. Bond, CEO of PFLAG National, emphasized that states remain free to adopt inclusive policies despite the Court’s decision.
“The Court rules best when it listens to the needs of marginalized people: trans people belong, on and off the field. While we celebrate the Court’s decision to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment and affirm that every person born in the United States is a citizen, the Court today added an asterisk to allow discrimination against transgender student athletes. Our country has been here before, and frankly, you would think this Court would have learned.”
“For PFLAG families, today’s decision in BPJ means that transgender athletes can continue to be affirmed for who they are in places where the law allows – and invigorates our LGBTQ+ and allied community to expand those protections. The parents, families, allies and LGBTQ+ people of PFLAG will continue to advocate for our trans loved ones to have the freedom to be themselves, everywhere. Trans people belong, and deserve to have access to the benefits of sport like everyone else.”
Allen Morris, policy director at the National LGBTQ Task Force, called the decision “devastating” but noted that it does not establish a nationwide sports ban.
“Today’s decision is devastating and the impact to clear. While this is not a nationwide ban on transgender participation in sports, the Court has given states a legal pathway to attempt to discriminate against trans individuals from full participation in school sports and all aspects of life.”
“This ruling is not just about sports: it’s about valuing and protecting the safety, security and constitutional rights of transgender people. By allowing states to draw a categorical line based on “biological sex,” the majority has chosen deference to exclusion and political beliefs over transgender students’ lived realities. There is already a dangerous rise in state-based violence growing across the country, and we’re overcoming this issue at each turn.”
Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, CEO of GLSEN, said the decision sends a broader message about transgender students’ place in schools.
“We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of this decision. This ruling represents another significant setback for transgender youth across the country, limiting their ability to fully engage in school life. Exclusion from these spaces shapes not only athletic access, but the broader message about who should be valued and included in our schools and societal ecosystem.”
“School sports are much more than competition. They are about belonging, forming a community, and the opportunity to grow and thrive alongside peers. Preventing youth from taking part in everyday activities undermines these fundamental values. We continue to see efforts to regulate discrimination under the guise of fairness, despite the lack of evidence that inclusive policies harm women’s sports. Access to these experiences is critical to students’ well-being and development.”
