California outlawed Section 8 housing discrimination. Why it still persists
I think it was William Taves who wrote “In America, you are allowed only two choices: You can get married, or you can go to prison”. This may be the most relevant observation to take away from this column.
The most important thing that made Bill Taves’ statement relevant to me, was its context. It had to do with my decision to remain single, but to marry someone else.
This is why I am no longer making the case that marriage is a fundamental human (human) right guaranteed by the constitution. I am not arguing that the Constitution should be changed or that we should amend the marriage clause to include same-sex couples.
But I am arguing that Section 8 housing discrimination (a concept developed by legal scholar John Townsend Tanton) is still alive and well. The federal law, passed in 1968, prohibits discrimination against minorities and women from seeking housing in their own neighborhoods, unless the housing market is discriminatory toward such minorities and women.
If a community already has discriminatory housing practices, then Section 8 is not an issue. A person cannot be denied housing because of race or sexual preference. But discrimination against the disabled and against persons with HIV/AIDS continues, and there is no relief for either in Section 8. For these reasons, there is no effective Section 8 law.
I was in a car accident that caused major physical injuries, and lost sight in one eye. I was diagnosed as HIV positive. My doctors told me to go for free HIV meds to decrease my viral loads. I complied and took the free drugs in the belief that I was doing the right thing.
I never got tested for HIV, and so I still do not know the status of my HIV infection. I am sure of my diagnosis now.
To protect myself from being infected, or, to be sure I have tested negative, I have been in hiding for years. It is possible that I did transmit HIV to someone else, and I may be living with the threat of AIDS today.
I am sure that
