I love how in California there is no consideration whatsoever about the state just imposing condom use for the purposes of "protecting public health" --- but I guess why not, there seem to be no limits to takings in that state. You know, just have the state mandate condom use all the time in all situations. That would greatly reduce the spread of STDs as well. And if it is for the benefit of public health, what wouldn't be a more noble cause?

What to pass a law? Let's call it a crisis.

You know, the advocates of the 21.06 sodomy law (now unconstitutional) in Texas frequently cited how anal sex allegedly spread STDs as well. [We want to outlaw sodmy because it spreads STDs... so they argue] I chuckle when I see West Hollywood democrats saying practically the same thing. The other side of the coin makes the same claims.

People grouse about social conservative Republicans dictating what they deem as proper behavior. Now I don't know this legislator - but the assemblyman from WEST HOLLYWOOD here is exhibiting identical behavior.

However, I'm sure that state legislator truly believes what he is doing is important and beneficial. But then under that logic so does Phyllis Schlafly, Jerry Falwell and others who find their remidies to protect the public from harm are equally worthwhile. However, I am certain that this guy will happily invoke the mean spirited religious right to scare us into giving him campaign money. (or shell out $$$ to HRC or other "good guy organizations") Then the Eagle Forum and Family Council people will invoke horrible threats from the gays to inspire their own fundraising for their groups.

And the beat goes on.

Steve