Court Weighs Husband's Sexual Past

[glantern954]

The article below is interesting in that they don't immediately claim the husband to be gay.

The first comment about the story reads as follows though: "Here is a tragic illustration of the threat posed to physical and emotional health by the hypocrisy and deceit of bisexual men."


Source: gay.com
Title: Calif. court weighs husband's sexual past
Author: Ann Rostow, PlanetOut Network
Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2006

In a lawsuit resembling a made-for-TV movie, a Los Angeles County woman is demanding that her former husband reveal the names and addresses of his sexual partners, including men, over a 10-year-period, along with his medical records and a host of other information about his sexual past.

On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, which addresses the tension between privacy rights and the state's interest in seeking the truth during court proceedings.

The wife, known as Bridget B., sued her ex-husband, John, for intentional and negligent emotional distress, claiming he knew or should have known of his risk of contracting HIV prior to their marriage in July 2000. Bridget, who had been involved with John since 1998, fell ill in September 2000, and tested positive for HIV that fall.

John developed AIDS symptoms a year later. Although he had tested negative for HIV just prior to the wedding, court papers say, a medical technician told Bridget that it was unlikely John could have developed AIDS unless he had been infected with the HIV virus for a period of some time, possibly years. John then admitted that he had had sex with men before the marriage.

In her lawsuit, Bridget's lawyers requested a vast array of information from John, who refused to respond to the questions on privacy grounds. In August 2003, a lower court ordered John to provide the answers. He appealed to California's Second Appellate District Court of Appeals, where, one year later, a panel ordered him to respond to some of the questions but not others.

The appellate court agreed that the names and contact information of John's former sexual partners were not central to Bridget's claims. On the other hand, John's medical history was allowed, as were certain questions regarding whether and when John knew or should have known that he was at sexual risk. Under California law, individuals are liable for injuries caused by "want of ordinary care and skill," including the transmission of sexual diseases. The court ruled that some answers were critical in determining if John failed this basic test.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the justices seemed to lean toward the principle that a new sexual partner should be held responsible for informing his or her mate about potential risks. The tougher questions, however, were whether the mere fact that a man has had unprotected sex with other men means that he should consider himself a potential vector for HIV -- and if the answer is yes, whether the names of former male partners should become a legitimate subject for discovery in a subsequent lawsuit.

Speaking to the Times, Lambda Legal senior counsel Jennifer Pizer said she hoped the court would apply its legal reasoning to all sexually transmitted diseases, not just HIV.

"One of the very important issues," Pizer said, "is the extent to which litigants can go on a fishing expedition."

More at:
View the comments (http://www.gay.com/news/discuss.html?discussion_id=117035&discuss_uri=%2Fnews%2Fdiscuss.html&discuss_id=117035&coll=news_articles&sernum=2006%2F04%2F05%2F1&navpath=channels%2Fnews%2Fdiscussions&ruri=%2Fnews%2Farticle.html&title=false#comment:47682)

[Driver 8]

... I admit I haven't thought through all the legal ramifications, or anything, but my first reaction was:

Look. He tested negative for HIV. Even though there's a window period, it wasn't unreasonable of him to believe that he was negative. He could have had sex with ten thousand men before he got married, but if he'd been HIV-, he wouldn't have infected anyone.

And yes, it's a fucking tragedy that she got infected. It's a tragedy that he did and it's a tragedy that anyone did. But when you have sex with someone who's tested HIV-, that is no guarantee that they actually are HIV-, and there is always a small - but real - chance that the test was wrong, or that they've gotten infected since.

(And I do hope someone else thinks of something more balanced to say.)

[Long Duck Dong]

On the other hand, John's medical history was allowed, as were certain questions regarding whether and when John knew or should have known that he was at sexual risk.

The tougher questions, however, were whether the mere fact that a man has had unprotected sex with other men means that he should consider himself a potential vector for HIV -- and if the answer is yes, whether the names of former male partners should become a legitimate subject for discovery in a subsequent lawsuit.


I read that as simply saying men that sleep with men, place people at risk from hiv.... and therefore men are responsible for revealing their personal lives and sexual inclinations to potential partners AT THE RISK OF SLANDER, GOSSIP and any of number of societies known biases of gays/ male bi's

what the article doesn't tell me, is that the hiv infection was proven to be passed from male to male to female... or that the male sleeping with males contributed directly to the female getting aids

I may ask why is the males history under the microscope and not the females.....as male to male sex is not the only way that the hiv virus is passed and its possible that the transmition of the hiv virus was transmitted via other means

[Driver 8]

As I understand it, it's possible to establish who you contracted HIV from, because there are so many strains of the virus and it changes quickly.

Although the article doesn't spell it out, I think it's safe to conclude that, yes, she was infected by her husband.

[red_riding_hood_27]

I understand why she is doing this. However I don't understand why she is asking the names of other men. I understand her wanting to punish her husband mentally for the pain he has caused her. I don't know whether I would have gone that far. What happens when she does gets the names it still will not save herself but cause more pain to a lot of people. This is between her and the man that lied to her by omission. Let me tell you that if my husband did this he would have wished he was dead. I would make his life a living hell.

The article does not show if she had any affair prior to marriage or does it reveal that they tested the men she was with prior to this man. I think fair is fair in the testing proceses. It could have been one of the past men in her life.

I see both side of this issue. This is not an easy issue to decide.

that is my :2cents:

Angela

[Mimi]

The wife, known as Bridget B., sued her ex-husband, John, for intentional and negligent emotional distress, claiming he knew or should have known of his risk of contracting HIV prior to their marriage in July 2000.

So this is the grounds on which she is suing him? That is ridiculous. There are plenty of people having unsafe sex with men, women, or both. If the husband knew that he was HIV+ and still had sex with her because he had intentions to infect her, then that might be a different story. Then you are saying that the husband had a plan and intention to harm her. But even so, trying to harm someone with, say a baseball bat, is different from trying to infect someone with a long-lasting, not-yet-curable disease (which does not transmit 100% of the time). And this husband doesn't sound like he was "intentionally" negligent.

The real issue here is her homophobia. That is why she's taking it so far as to want the names of the people he slept with. She wants revenge for her tragic situation and the easiest target is the gay part. Where she really needs to take this is to a therapist, not to a courtroom. I am not only putting responsiblity on the woman here -- I think the husband was deceitful in hiding his sexual activities from her and he was careless in having unsafe sex. But if he were having affairs with women and got infected by a woman, this case would not be happening.

I'm also disappointed that people are trying to demonize bis here. Once again, we don't need another heartwrenching story about someone who was cheated on by a partner who is behaviorally bisexual. I hate the media for this!
:mad:

Mimi :flag1:

[Driver 8]

If the husband knew that he was HIV+ and still had sex with her because he had intentions to infect her, then that might be a different story.
IANAL, but if he intended to cause her harm, that's unquestionably a different story, regardless of the means. And if he knew he was infected, but spread the disease accidentally, that's different too - but that can also be the basis of a lawsuit (even if the disease in question isn't AIDS).

[Long Duck Dong]

I guess i am kinda moody about this cos my sister is dying of aids, and her partner died last year ( both are females and bi )

in one case the male took his own life after learning he had the virus, and with the other case, the male fled the country ( he knew he had the virus and failed to advise )

I heard all the nasty remarks about damm gay / bi males from a lot of friends, and I immediately lost the plot and said things like what about eve ( a young girl in nz who got aids from a blood transfusion ) or the young lady in aussie who got it thru a careless dentist that cut himself during dental work on the female

and my parting remark was always this.... are gays responsible for the high rates of teen pregnancy, abortions and many of the std infections in people nowadays, or the single parent familes or unwanted children in the world, are we responsible for the high rates of rape, and sex offences ????

careless sex increases the risk of catching hiv, I agree with that... but gays and bis are been targetted by a world that can't see that heteros are no saints either

aids is now like the flu, you can take every precaution you want, it doesn't quarantee you will not get the flu..... but it sure limits the chances of you being exposed to it

[Ashoka & Kaurwaki]

Couple of things really strike me as absurd in this case. But, it's been a long time since I studied law and the american civil legal system has always been bizzare tbh. So, this is just me talking:



The wife, known as Bridget B., sued her ex-husband, John, for intentional and negligent emotional distress, claiming he knew or should have known of his risk of contracting HIV prior to their marriage in July 2000.

From this, she is actually suing him because he had sex with men. Not that he was HIV positive at the time, but because he was putting emotional distress on her because he MIGHT have been at risk for contracting HIV. I actually cannot fathom the basis of this lawsuit and the legal ramifications of it actually going through. That means that if you have any worry (worry, not proof, just worry) that your partner is possibly putting you at risk (because of past history) you can sue them. Now, granted, we don't have all the facts - but this seems insane.



Bridget, who had been involved with John since 1998, fell ill in September 2000, and tested positive for HIV that fall.

John developed AIDS symptoms a year later. Although he had tested negative for HIV just prior to the wedding, court papers say, a medical technician told Bridget that it was unlikely John could have developed AIDS unless he had been infected with the HIV virus for a period of some time, possibly years.

This is the one that gets me. She tested positive first! A year later, he develops it (reasonable thought for me is - maybe he contracted it from her?) and then she gets emotional distress?!? All because a friend of hers (a medical technician? Not sure what they are, but not a nurse or doctor....) tells her that he may have had it first - with out ever seeing medical records or any such information! If I were the defendant - I'd parade doctors and medical experts in everyday and choke them on expert testimoney (I'd also be filing a counter suit for the same thing - more below).


In her lawsuit, Bridget's lawyers requested a vast array of information from John

Yes, that's right folks, Doctor patient privilage only extends to the point of your ex-wife getting pissed off at you and questions your sexual history. For the love of god this whole thing seems insane - just the fact that it's been dragging on for over 3 years AND that it's been to appelant court. The initial judge should have thrown it out on merrit alone! If I were John, I'd do the exact same thing and ask for her sexual history and medical records - because she displayed AIDS first.

Let us recap what's going on:

Man and woman get together
Before they get married, he has an HIV test, it comes back negative
Early 2000 woman gets sick, that fall tests positive for AIDS
1 year later (give or take, we don't have dates) Man also tests positive for AIDS
Woman sues man for emotional stress because of his lifestyle and says that he purposefully put her at risk. Her Lawyers ask for medical history and names and contact information for EVERYONE he had slept with over a specific period of time (probably 10 years)
Man appeals under freedom of Pirvacy, they say somethings are private, but not medical records, oh and if it does show anything abnormal, you have to give up the other stuff.
Man does not file counter suit, nor bring up her sexual history or anything.

Really, this is nuts!

The initial law:
"individuals are liable for injuries caused by "want of ordinary care and skill," including the transmission of sexual diseases"; was originally created to protect individuals who were hurt by sexual preditors who purposfully spread disease to others. It was not created for this purpose........ ugh

[JohnnyV]

I also read this article when it came out on gay.com. To be fair, you might want to look at all the ongoing articles about HIV liability issues. Gay-gay relationships are also difficult to navigate around these problems. And the comments posted by gay.com members, while crude regarding bisexuality, are equally crude regarding anybody who has HIV. Some of them called for the death penalty for a man who infected his male partner.

J

[Long Duck Dong]

I also read this article when it came out on gay.com. To be fair, you might want to look at all the ongoing articles about HIV liability issues. Gay-gay relationships are also difficult to navigate around these problems. And the comments posted by gay.com members, while crude regarding bisexuality, are equally crude regarding anybody who has HIV. Some of them called for the death penalty for a man who infected his male partner.

aids is a death sentence... plain and simple....some STDS are life sentences... and you will still die at the end... killing a hiv carrier is not gonna change the fact that aids is a issue for any sexual group.... besides if I was in a gay relationship and my partner gave hiv to me.... then I would make the simple choice, that for better or for worse....we have a bond that transcends any marriage agreement....and it will be til death do us part

there would be no point in killing my partner, for that sentences me to a lonely life ( short as it may be ) and if we both agreed to stay together til the end, then it should be allowed to be that way