AIDS Threatens to Be ‘Biggest Political Issue’ : Gays in California Fear a Backlash

It was here in urban California that homosexuals brought their life style--and their politics--out of the closet and onto the boulevards. It was here, as old barriers were knocked aside and when nothing seemed impossible, that gays exuberantly staked out their own city of West Hollywood, and here where they put their colorful stamp on another city, San Francisco.

And, now, it is again in urban California that a sobered homosexual community ponders whether its political advances are going to be interrupted, or perhaps reversed, in a surge of anti-gay feeling during the coming months as political concern grows over the mysterious acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

‘A Time Bomb’

“What we have here,” one Republican political strategist said, “is a time bomb.”

So far, when votes have been called in city halls and in the state Legislature, the AIDS constituency, which is chiefly composed of homosexuals, has fared well in California despite the epidemic.

However, as with many factors connected with the deadly virus, one must emphasize the words, so far. The AIDS constituency and gays have fared well, so far.

“The system has been wonderful,” enthused Larry Sprenger of the Municipal Election Committee of Los Angeles, one of the nation’s leading gay political organizations.

First-in-the-nation ordinances prohibiting discrimination against AIDS victims have been enacted in the last 90 days in four cities--Los Angeles, West Hollywood, San Francisco and Hayward--providing people who are at high risk of AIDS with a measure of legal and psychological peace of mind.

In Sacramento, state government prohibits private companies from using blood tests for AIDS antibodies to determine insurance eligibility or rates or for employment screening. State tax dollars for AIDS-related research and programs ballooned almost sixfold in three years, to $20.3 million, more than twice as much as the other 49 states combined.

Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, after first vetoing as unnecessary $11.6 million of $27.6 million in AIDS financing, later agreed to add an additional $4.3 million in research funds, calling AIDS a global problem and pronouncing a “moral imperative” to find a cure.

“California has led the nation in dealing with this in a progressive way,” said Los Angeles City Councilman Joel Wachs, author of the city’s AIDS anti-discrimination ordinance. Basically, the law says that those with AIDS “or any medical signs or symptoms related thereto” cannot be fired from their jobs, denied housing or in any way treated differently than other people.

Significantly, these policy decisions around the state were derived in an atmosphere of relative political quiet.

In Los Angeles, for instance, the vote was 14 to 0 for the anti-discrimination ordinance. And it was not until the final vote and signature by Mayor Tom Bradley that any kind of serious opposition emerged.

“I knew we had to get it through before people got polarized,” Wachs recalled. “We had to pass it in a period of calm. There is a moral here: People are reasonable if they deal with it in a calm climate.”

Even though he was braced for a backlash, Wachs was surprised by its intensity. A friend saw him soon after the furious calls and threatening letters began. “He was literally shaking,” the friend recalled.

‘Overwhelmingly Awful’

Said Wachs: “It was overwhelmingly awful. . . . A lot of it described (AIDS) as a curse rather than a virus. I was stunned by the incredible numbers of really hateful things that came in.”

Backers of the ordinance were relieved that, despite a fury of mail and calls, no serious recall drives emerged.

“As long as we can keep the political lid on, we’re OK. If AIDS becomes a political football, everybody loses,” said Bruce Decker, an openly gay Republican and the governor’s choice to chair state government’s AIDS Advisory Committee.

Political leaders around the state express a pervasive belief that the relative political calm of 1985 could quickly turn turbulent. And this means that, on the campaign stump and in the halls of government, the politics of AIDS is as uncertain as the medicine of AIDS.

“There is no, absolutely no, sympathy among people for those who have AIDS. Is that good? No. Is it real? Yes. . . . Here we’ve got Typhoid Marys as far as the public is concerned,” said Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Hawthorne), who chairs the Assembly Labor Committee. The committee has originated important gay rights legislation in the past and is likely to hear many of the AIDS-related legislative initiatives being considered by political leaders.

“It’s going to get worse, it really is going to get worse,” said Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), a longtime and vigorous supporter of homosexuals.

Already, AIDS has taken its toll on gay rights in the Assembly. A bill to prevent employers from discriminating against homosexuals (AIDS was not mentioned and was not a consideration) has advanced from the Labor Committee in the past but was bottled up there in 1985. Fear of a backlash because of new concerns over AIDS and a preoccupation among gay leaders with health-related legislation were the major factors, Floyd said.

Sharp Turnabout

This is a sharp turnabout from the spring of 1984, when AIDS was still a footnote in the public discourse. The Legislature, on bipartisan votes, passed the job rights proposal, and Deukmejian came within a whisker of signing it. Ultimately, he chose a veto on grounds there was insufficient evidence of employment discrimination against gays.

Gay leaders and their political supporters struggle to make the point that AIDS is not a “homosexual disease” but a virus that has afflicted people in a number of groups. So far, most of its victims in this country are homosexual.

“AIDS is no more an indictment of gays than breast cancer is an indictment of women,” Decker insisted.

However, few argue with the fact that AIDS has raised new public suspicion of homosexuality.

“There is a community of interest around AIDS that includes more than gays. It involves the medical community, the research community, mental health professionals and hemophiliacs. If it was just us, we’d be in trouble,” Decker said.

Legislators like Floyd illustrate the political tug-of-war. Over the years, he has represented his blue-collar district as a sympathetic vote on civil rights, including gay rights.

“People in my district aren’t into gay-bashing. They mostly say, ‘I don’t care what your life style is as long as it doesn’t affect me,’ ” Floyd said.

“Now, they’re saying they don’t want anywhere near this life style.. . . It’s both a civil rights and a health issue. But for me, the most important is protecting the public health.”

Next year’s legislative agenda shapes up as important to the AIDS constituency.

Two Priorities

Brown listed two priorities to be tackled in January. First is insurance legislation to guarantee homosexuals and other high-risk AIDS groups continued coverage. Gay leaders are contemplating options, including variations of “pooled” coverage to spread costs among insurance carriers. The second priority, Brown said, is legislation to stimulate experimental AIDS treatments by limiting financial liability in such cases.

Other key lawmakers said they expect the introduction of a bill, similar to the four city ordinances, to ban discrimination against AIDS patients, and probably much more.

Brown, for one, said he prefers to avoid a debate on a statewide AIDS anti-discrimination bill because of the potential for backlash. “The body politic has a great fear of AIDS, and I think there is a tendency for a quite negative reaction against gays,” he said.

Assemblyman Art Agnos (D-San Francisco), who has probably spent more time than any other California politician on gay and AIDS issues, says he and his supporters will have their hands full fighting insurance companies--who cite high costs they will pass on to all their policy holders--over the insurability of high-risk AIDS groups.

“This is a matter of them making money. . . . I expect them to come at us head on, and I’m pessimistic,” Agnos said. “We’re on the threshold of a major political explosion around AIDS.”

Many politicians wonder how this potential political explosion could affect the 1986 elections for governor, the U.S. Senate and House, and the Legislature.

“Wait until the people in Fresno hear that Tom Bradley signed an ordinance that says if the chef in your restaurant has AIDS, you can’t fire him,” said one seasoned Democratic political consultant who asked not to be named. Bradley, a Democrat, is expected to challenge Deukmejian for the governorship next year.

‘A Time Bomb’

This view is shared by Republicans, including the one who called the ordinance “a time bomb.” And legislators like Agnos agree. “That one is just waiting to go off.”

Tom Houston, deputy mayor under Bradley, noted that the ordinance is drafted to follow health guidelines promulgated by the federal Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.

Those guidelines say it is safe for AIDS patients to continue as food workers but caution them to “exercise care to avoid injury to the hands when preparing food.” This caution is necessary because health officials say AIDS can be transmitted by such bodily fluids as blood. The guidelines say that “should an injury occur, both aesthetic and sanitary considerations would dictate that food contaminated with blood be discarded.”

Houston said of the Los Angeles ordinance, “This is a timely educational tool to get the message out in a very visible way that AIDS is not transmitted by casual contact and therefore people who have AIDS should not be shunned or discriminated against.”

He added the ordinance has not led to any lawsuits “and probably won’t ever.”

Houston said Deukmejian may find himself in trouble for vetoing AIDS money to deal with “the largest health crisis in the state.”

Homosexuals and their backers temper their hopes with their darkest fears in speculating about the potential for voter backlash.

‘People’s Lives’

“You’re talking about people’s lives,” Wachs said. “You’re playing with the fundamental decency of people. In the end, I don’t think it will succeed. But you can’t back off; you have to accept that as a possible consequence.”

So far, the most vocal criticism of gays as a result of AIDS comes from the most conservative of California’s Republicans, like Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton).

“The homosexual movement in my view is a frontal attack on the basis of our civilization by seeking to assert that family of two men or two women is equivalent to family unit that raises children. That’s immoral,” Dannemeyer said.

Another stern critic of the gay life style is Los Angeles County Supervisor and state Republican Chairman Mike Antonovich, who is expected soon to announce his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. He recently told an interviewer that he thought it would be a good idea if gays went straight to stop the spread of AIDS.

Antonovich has since said that statement was an incomplete thought. He said what he meant to say was that only healthy gays should consider going straight and that others should think of celibacy or monogamy as a way to stop the spread of AIDS.

“Seventy-five percent of the people who have AIDS are homosexual. Their promiscuous behavior has helped spread this disease,” Antonovich said.

Even harsher criticism can been seen on the fringes of politics. At a recent Los Angeles meeting of a politically conservative group of investors, literature was passed out proclaiming “AIDS--the Liberals’ Leprosy” and denouncing the “Homosexual Holocaust.”

Campaign by Gay Activist

Complicating the whole matter of gay and AIDS politics in Los Angeles has been an exploratory Assembly campaign by gay activist and businessman Peter Scott. He has been considering running against incumbent Assembly Democratic leader Mike Roos, who represents the Silver Lake area of the city. Roos, who has been linked to the political corruption investigation surrounding fireworks mogul Patrick Moriarty, is a close lieutenant of Brown.

Brown has reacted strongly against the insurgent Scott and said the challenge to Roos could set back gay rights in the Legislature. “They want to pick over the bones of a friend, and that’s the highest degree of disloyalty,” Brown snapped.

Whether because of Brown’s threats or because of a new career opportunity, gay sources in Los Angeles and San Francisco say Scott has decided to drop out of the race. Scott acknowledged that he is reconsidering but insisted that “it could go either way right now.”

If Scott chooses not to run and if no gay candidate emerges with a serious chance for election to the Legislature, the dream of gays to be represented by one of their own in Sacramento will be unfilled. So far.