Constitution Party (1 Viewer)

[Alex]

I thought we could start this forum with a little-known party to make it more interesting. Beginning with Republicans or Democrats may be redundant with other threads.

The complete Constitution Party Platform can be found here:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

One thing I would like to debate is their platform on HIV/AIDS. It is this:

HIV / AIDS is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting HIV / AIDS.

I think this is going too far. To say that our government is "encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct" is outrageous. Should criminal penalties apply to people who transmit HIV to a knowing person? Do you think this meant to be an attack on homosexuals?

If anyone reads the platform and finds other interesting statements, please add them.

 

[ShamMol]

Well, I believe it already is a crime in some states to transmitt knowingly a sexual disease, and if not that, one can sue for civil damages depending on the severity of the infection (STD).

The United States Constitution does not provide for lifetime appointment of federal judges, but only for a term of office during good behavior. We support Congressional enforcement of the Constitutional rule of good behavior and to restrain judicial activism by properly removing offending judges through the process of impeachment provided for in Article I, § 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Congress must exert the power it possesses to prohibit all federal courts from hearing cases which Congress deems to be outside federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the Constitution.

We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

I don't really understand the last part very well, what they are trying to imply.

But I really don't agree with them on the judicial activism part. Who are they to say what is activism and who will be the one to determine if someone is being activist? And how do we define activism? Etc, Etc. It is a strong statement that requires far too much clarification. Would they be willing to support impeachment of liberal and conservative activists and is activism even prohibited under the constitution? This raises more questions than it answers about its platform.

My problem with their entire platform boils down to two points-the insistence that god is supreme to everything we do (in direct violation of the seperation of church and state if they were to get into office) and the fact that anything not said in the constitution is illegal...like social security.

 

[Connecticutter]

Intesting one to start with. Okay, let's go piece by piece.

HIV / AIDS is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health.

Okay, so far I agree.

It should not be treated as a civil rights issue.

I honestly have no clue what they mean by this statement.

Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct.

In theory I could agree. If the government were encouraging the spread of HIV by paying HIV positive agents money to go out and have sex with people, I would have a problem with our government.

However, I think that when the Constitution Party puts this idea into practice, they mean something else. They probably use this to justify sodomy laws, the drug war, and the special rights granted to heterosexual marriage.

Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting HIV / AIDS.

Once again, they are being cryptic. I think that if you transmit HIV to someone else purposefully without their knowledge you should get in trouble - but people should be responsible for who they have consensual sex with. I have a feeling that CP members want something else. Why don't they just tell us what laws they are trying to pass? What do you all think they want?

 

[Alex]

Well, I believe it already is a crime in some states to transmitt knowingly a sexual disease, and if not that, one can sue for civil damages depending on the severity of the infection (STD).

What they are saying in their platform is criminal penalties still apply to people who give HIV to other people even if both people are aware of it or not. So if someone passes the virus on to another person they should face penalties whether they knew they had it or not, or even if they both were aware of it.

But I really don't agree with them on the judicial activism part. Who are they to say what is activism and who will be the one to determine if someone is being activist? And how do we define activism? Etc, Etc. It is a strong statement that requires far too much clarification. Would they be willing to support impeachment of liberal and conservative activists and is activism even prohibited under the constitution? This raises more questions than it answers about its platform.

I do not know where they got the idea that federal judges do not serve lifetime appointments. Article III, Section 1 states:

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."

Sounds like lifetime appointment to me unless the judge messes up.

 

[ShamMol]

What they are saying in their platform is criminal penalties still apply to people who give HIV to other people even if both people are aware of it or not. So if someone passes the virus on to another person they should face penalties whether they knew they had it or not, or even if they both were aware of it.

Well that is idiotic then. I cannot seriously believe that a court of law would uphold not knowing as a crime. Usually, that is seen as an almost air-tight defense in obscure laws.

I do not know where they got the idea that federal judges do not serve lifetime appointments. Article III, Section 1 states:

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."

Sounds like lifetime appointment to me unless the judge messes up.

I think what they are saying is that article 3 doesn't state specifically that it is lifetime. And they want to extend the good behavior beyond the standard high crimes and misdemeanors to extend to making rulings they don't agree with.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

But I really don't agree with them on the judicial activism part. Who are they to say what is activism and who will be the one to determine if someone is being activist? And how do we define activism? Etc, Etc. It is a strong statement that requires far too much clarification. Would they be willing to support impeachment of liberal and conservative activists and is activism even prohibited under the constitution? This raises more questions than it answers about its platform.

A judicial activist is any judge that makes rulings contrary to the original intentions of the constitution and it's framers. Those who generally make rulings based on the literal interpretation of the constitution and considering the original intent of the forefathers that designed it, are called originalists. If you define liberal as those that stray from the original intents of those things... then yes, those judges should be impeached.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

II think this is going too far. To say that our government is "encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct" is outrageous. Should criminal penalties apply to people who transmit HIV to a knowing person?

Yes. That would be not only a form of assisted suicide, which need I remind you Mr. kavorkians case created rulings firmly against, but also could be constued as accessory to murder if that person in turn infects another without their knowledge. The conscious spreading of fatal diseases of any type should be illegal, volentary or not.

Do you think this meant to be an attack on homosexuals?

I did not see the word 'homosexuals' in the platform. If you did, please

 

[Stherngntlmn]

My problem with their entire platform boils down to two points-the insistence that god is supreme to everything we do (in direct violation of the seperation of church and state if they were to get into office)

the constitution party doesn't believe the intent of the original forefather's was "seperation of church and state", merely the prevention of a "state church" like the church of england was at the time of the revolutionary war.

and the fact that anything not said in the constitution is illegal...like social security.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now find me Social Security in the constitution.

 

[ShamMol]

the constitution party doesn't believe the intent of the original forefather's was "seperation of church and state", merely the prevention of a "state church" like the church of england was at the time of the revolutionary war.

That is kind of what I figured, though the seperation of church and state has been interpretted over the years to mean something completely, and accurately, different.

Now find me Social Security in the constitution.

I am not a strict constructionist. Thank you, no.

 

[ShamMol]

A judicial activist is any judge that makes rulings contrary to the original intentions of the constitution and it's framers. Those who generally make rulings based on the literal interpretation of the constitution and considering the original intent of the forefathers that designed it, are called originalists.

Strict constructionists, originalists, the point stands. They don't know what was in the minds of the founding fathers. We can't ask them, we don't know. The literal interpretation is often not enough to make an informed ruling and thust they have to look everywhere possible to find case law supporting their theory (yes, even Scalia does that too).

If you define liberal as those that stray from the original intents of those things... then yes, those judges should be impeached.

That is wrong. What people are doing is saying people that are on the court with a liberal political mind are the only ones who are being activist. That is false and should be ammended because I know of many conservative rulings that could be under that definition activist. The most recent one involved the Ten Comm. when a justice refused to remove it, even after a federal court order, tell me that isn't activist.

 

[Alex]

Yes. That would be not only a form of assisted suicide, which need I remind you Mr. kavorkians case created rulings firmly against, but also could be constued as accessory to murder if that person in turn infects another without their knowledge. The conscious spreading of fatal diseases of any type should be illegal, volentary or not.

I did not see the word 'homosexuals' in the platform. If you did, please

A person has the right to die without government interference. The Constitution Party claims to uphold our Constitution and yet nowhere in it is there the government right to stop it. If there are two consenting adults who have sex and they both know one has a transmittable and fatal disease, that is their business, not the government's and certainly not any business of any other citizen. With this logic people could go to jail for giving someone a cigarette or an alcoholic beverage. Even selling someone junk food would mean criminal penalties with this reasoning. People are ultimately responsible for themselves. Also, just because someone knows they have HIV and they have sex with another person does not mean they are consciously spreading it. I realize there may be a few people who do this intentionally, and you are correct; they are imposing intentional harm on another person and should be penalize.

The word homosexual is in the platform. First here:

"Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions. "

Our Constitution provides equal treatment for all under the law. Amendment XIV states "nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " This amendment specifically applies to the states and does mention that, so the Tenth Amendment does not apply. If one person is allowed to marry under the law, then all must be allowed. I truly believe that this party is not what it seems to call them self. With the above point made, do they really understand our Constitution?

Again here:

"We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples."

The Fourteenth Amendment also applies here. If the law allows one person to adopt, then all must be allowed.

The word "homosexual" is not in the section I mentioned. Reading the entire platform though, I have to wonder if they put homosexuals in the category of "perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct," which they do mention in the section. Of course I could be wrong about that. I only asked it to initiate some thought and debate. What do you think?

 

[Stherngntlmn]

A person has the right to die without government interference. The Constitution Party claims to uphold our Constitution and yet nowhere in it is there the government right to stop it. If there are two consenting adults who have sex and they both know one has a transmittable and fatal disease, that is their business, not the government's and certainly not any business of any other citizen. With this logic people could go to jail for giving someone a cigarette or an alcoholic beverage. Even selling someone junk food would mean criminal penalties with this reasoning. People are ultimately responsible for themselves. Also, just because someone knows they have HIV and they have sex with another person does not mean they are consciously spreading it. I realize there may be a few people who do this intentionally, and you are correct; they are imposing intentional harm on another person and should be penalize.

But the conscious spread of a fatal disease, is harmful to society as a whole, malicious intent or not. Realize that the disease may be spread beyond those two people, so even though that maybe a conscious choice the first person makes.. it may not be for the 3rd person. If the CDC has the legal right to housearrest quarantine someone with an airborne virus.. why wouldn't the government have the legal ability to sexually quarantine someone with a fatal STD? You may not agree with assisted suicide rulings, but they are there. Killing somebody is illegal whether they ask for it or not. Cigarettes, fast food, and alcohol are not inherently lethal when consumed on a small scale... HIV/AIDS is lethal no matter how many times you have sex or how much you are infected with.

The word homosexual is in the platform. First here:

"Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions. "

Our Constitution provides equal treatment for all under the law. Amendment XIV states "nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " This amendment specifically applies to the states and does mention that, so the Tenth Amendment does not apply. If one person is allowed to marry under the law, then all must be allowed. I truly believe that this party is not what it seems to call them self. With the above point made, do they really understand our Constitution?

My personal thoughts on homosexual unions are posted in the gay marriage section. I'm not read up on the detailed official stance of how the constitution party proposes to deal with this issues, but I'm of the firm belief that it should be up to the states to determine any legislation on this issue. I'm also of the belief that as long as a union contract with matching benefits is offered with a different legal terminology, then noboy'd rights are violated. This is not the thread to argue details on that though, just an explainatory thread about the party platform.

Again here:

"We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples."

The Fourteenth Amendment also applies here. If the law allows one person to adopt, then all must be allowed.

begrudgingly agreed, although I do not think a homosexual household is healthy for a child on a personal level, it would be unconstitutional for that to be imposed.

The word "homosexual" is not in the section I mentioned. Reading the entire platform though, I have to wonder if they put homosexuals in the category of "perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct," which they do mention in the section. Of course I could be wrong about that. I only asked it to initiate some thought and debate. What do you think?

You're probably right about that, and I might agree, although those are very subjective terms, and might be a matter of personal opinion.

*side note: I don't speak for the entire constitution party. I just recently joined their ranks because I'm a disenfranchised classical republican/constitutional originalist who got sick of neo-cons and evangelicals twisting the party's platform, and historical image in directions it never should have gone. After reading the constitution party platform, it more accurately reflects my political leanings than any other party.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Strict constructionists, originalists, the point stands. They don't know what was in the minds of the founding fathers. We can't ask them, we don't know. The literal interpretation is often not enough to make an informed ruling and thust they have to look everywhere possible to find case law supporting their theory (yes, even Scalia does that too).

but I consider a literal interpretation to be the most accurate as it does not require subjective assumption on behalf of the judge. Ginsberg has actually used international treaties the US never signed and foreign legislation having nothing to do with the US to supprt her theories, are you in favor of that too? The Supreme Court's most core principle should be to judge based upon constitutional interpretation.. yes case law can be used... but the constitution should always be at the core of the decision.

That is wrong. What people are doing is saying people that are on the court with a liberal political mind are the only ones who are being activist. That is false and should be ammended because I know of many conservative rulings that could be under that definition activist. The most recent one involved the Ten Comm. when a justice refused to remove it, even after a federal court order, tell me that isn't activist.

The depends on your interpretation of "Freedom of religion". Those who are constitutional originalists may argue that the judgement of the case was in tune with the original interpretation of the amendment.

 

[ShamMol]

but I consider a literal interpretation to be the most accurate as it does not require subjective assumption on behalf of the judge. Ginsberg has actually used international treaties the US never signed and foreign legislation having nothing to do with the US to supprt her theories, are you in favor of that too? The Supreme Court's most core principle should be to judge based upon constitutional interpretation.. yes case law can be used... but the constitution should always be at the core of the decision.

No, it isn't case law can be used, it must. That is crux of any argument. You cite her use of international as well as national sentiment and law. But that wasn't the crux of her argument, that was just an added bonus. I think I had that exact debate a month ago here. I am not in favor of using that in an opinion, but that was her choice. The point is that her theory had the support of case law and was relevant to the facts in the case.

Oh, and sujective interpretation? That is what a judge is. They make the decision. They are not robots who can only come to one decision-they interpret what each case means and thus what is the right outcome.

The depends on your interpretation of "Freedom of religion". Those who are constitutional originalists may argue that the judgement of the case was in tune with the original interpretation of the amendment.

And there are others who argue otherwise. Your point being? It isn't being activist when you uphold existing case law that doesn't seriously violate the constitution.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Your point being? It isn't being activist when you uphold existing case law that doesn't seriously violate the constitution.

what do u consider a less than serious violation of the constitution?

 

[Columbusite]

Stherngntlmn.

The fact that this and not the Constitutioanlist Party, which actually DOES stand up for our Constitution, has a much smaller following is sad. Why? Because simpletons look at the name and that's it. You left the Republicans because they are being taken over by evangelicals and neo-cons right? Can you read? The CP is full of worse, Christian reconstructionists. Take this for example, “Well, we know punishing homosexuals by death would be extremely hard in today’s society,” Larry Kilgore, the Dallas/Fort Worth chairman of the Constitution Party, said. “But we hope that we can help to drive it underground so in about twenty or thirty years, the punishment can fit the crime.” Not only that, have you read the bit about returning to our "Biblical foundation" which never existed? If you want that you'll have to go back before the USA was formed from the colonies that had laws like the death penalty for blasphemy. If you were in fact a "constitutional originalist" you would despise what the CP stands for.

 

[Alex]

Stherngntlmn.

The fact that this and not the Constitutioanlist Party, which actually DOES stand up for our Constitution, has a much smaller following is sad. Why? Because simpletons look at the name and that's it. You left the Republicans because they are being taken over by evangelicals and neo-cons right? Can you read? The CP is full of worse, Christian reconstructionists. Take this for example, “Well, we know punishing homosexuals by death would be extremely hard in today’s society,” Larry Kilgore, the Dallas/Fort Worth chairman of the Constitution Party, said. “But we hope that we can help to drive it underground so in about twenty or thirty years, the punishment can fit the crime.” Not only that, have you read the bit about returning to our "Biblical foundation" which never existed? If you want that you'll have to go back before the USA was formed from the colonies that had laws like the death penalty for blasphemy. If you were in fact a "constitutional originalist" you would despise what the CP stands for.

Are you stating that the Constitution Party stands up for our Constitution? How is this possible when its platform includes this (cut and paste from a previous post on this thread):

"Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions. "

Our Constitution provides equal treatment for all under the law. Amendment XIV states "nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " This amendment specifically applies to the states and does mention that, so the Tenth Amendment does not apply. If one person is allowed to marry under the law, then all must be allowed. I truly believe that this party is not what it seems to call them self. With the above point made, do they really understand our Constitution?



"We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples."

The Fourteenth Amendment also applies here. If the law allows one person to adopt, then all must be allowed.

I think I misunderstood your point, please clarify.

 

[Connecticutter]

“Well, we know punishing homosexuals by death would be extremely hard in today’s society,” Larry Kilgore, the Dallas/Fort Worth chairman of the Constitution Party, said. “But we hope that we can help to drive it underground so in about twenty or thirty years, the punishment can fit the crime.”

That's some pretty scary stuff. As a republican, I want my party to move in the direction of more personal freedoms as far as choosing a lifestyle goes. I actually haven't met many hard-core fundamentalists in Republican circles. They are present in the party, but the peole spewing the kind of garbage quoted above are a small minority. Then again, even Pat Buchanan wouldn't say something like that.

As for the constitution party - I think that they are full of these kinds of guys. Doesn't mean everything in their platform is wrong - just means that in order to support any of them I'd have to see more actual "constition" going on and less gay-bashing.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Stherngntlmn.

The fact that this and not the Constitutioanlist Party, which actually DOES stand up for our Constitution, has a much smaller following is sad. Why? Because simpletons look at the name and that's it. You left the Republicans because they are being taken over by evangelicals and neo-cons right? Can you read? The CP is full of worse, Christian reconstructionists. Take this for example, “Well, we know punishing homosexuals by death would be extremely hard in today’s society,” Larry Kilgore, the Dallas/Fort Worth chairman of the Constitution Party, said. “But we hope that we can help to drive it underground so in about twenty or thirty years, the punishment can fit the crime.” Not only that, have you read the bit about returning to our "Biblical foundation" which never existed? If you want that you'll have to go back before the USA was formed from the colonies that had laws like the death penalty for blasphemy. If you were in fact a "constitutional originalist" you would despise what the CP stands for.

That was one statement made by one man.. I have never heard of that man, nor do I agree with his extremists statements. That agenda is listed nowhere in the party platform. I don't agree with EVERY single point of the party platform, but it is a closer representation of my personal view than the current republican party platform and agenda.

 

[Columbusite]

That was one statement made by one man.. I have never heard of that man, nor do I agree with his extremists statements. That agenda is listed nowhere in the party platform. I don't agree with EVERY single point of the party platform, but it is a closer representation of my personal view than the current republican party platform and agenda.

That man is the Dallas/Fort Worth chairman of the Constitution Party, not just any member. That is kind of mentioned in the platform. They want this country to follow Biblical law, therefore they are going to do what the Bible says to do to gay people. I don't see how you support a theocratic party AND support the Constitution at the same time. I'd be interested to hear your explanation.

 

[Columbusite]

Are you stating that the Constitution Party stands up for our Constitution?

When I said "The fact that this and not the Constitutioanlist Party, which actually DOES stand up for our Constitution, has a much smaller following is sad." I was saying that it is the ConstitutionALIST party that is in fact, constitutional as opposed to the thinly veiled theocratic bile spewed by the "Constitution" Party.

 

[Alex]

When I said "The fact that this and not the Constitutioanlist Party, which actually DOES stand up for our Constitution, has a much smaller following is sad." I was saying that it is the ConstitutionALIST party that is in fact, constitutional as opposed to the thinly veiled theocratic bile spewed by the "Constitution" Party.

I knew that was my misunderstanding. I didn't know if it was a typo or if there really was a party called "Constitutioanalist."

 

[Stherngntlmn]

They want this country to follow Biblical law

That is untrue, and nowhere in their party platform. If it was, I would disassociate myself with them completely.

therefore they are going to do what the Bible says to do to gay people.

show which biblical passage you are refering to. I've read several biblical translations, and don't think I've ever come across ANY passage telling christians "to do" anything to homosexuals

I don't see how you support a theocratic party AND support the Constitution at the same time.

It's not theocratic. that implies being ruled by religion. They just believe that there was no such thing as "seperation of church and state" in the original constitution, which I agree with, as there was no mention of "seperation of church and state" before the 20th century, and the phrase was created in a private letter by Thomas Jefferson written to a church that he had a personal disagreement with. The believe that the first amendment implies the prevention of a church state, which would be like a "Church of England" type atomsphere, which is what many of the founding fathers of this country had problems with. You may disagree with this point of view, but your disagreement makes the view no less valid. To twist their pronounced religious affiliation as "theocratic" is totally misguided.

 

[Columbusite]

I feel like banging my head against a brick wall. You sound reasonable, but so blind to this that I am just baffled. I am assuming you are for real so I will try to be as clear on the matter as possible.

That is untrue, and nowhere in their party platform. If it was, I would disassociate myself with them completely.

How plainly DO they have to state it? Will you not accept anything short of "We want this country to follow Biblical law"? Where do you think they are getting their platform from? A "Biblical foundation". That's what it says right on the front and reading their positions shows they are obviously catering to the Christian right.

show which biblical passage you are refering to. I've read several biblical translations, and don't think I've ever come across ANY passage telling christians "to do" anything to homosexuals

Do you mean you've read the entire thing several times? You should then find the CP to be painfully transparent. But then it seems not much of it stuck with you. There's this one that's popular Leviticu 20:13( KJV)"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."And from the NT Romans "1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" So they are "worthy of death" and should be "put to death". I don't think it could be any clearer.

It's not theocratic. that implies being ruled by religion. They just believe that there was no such thing as "seperation of church and state" in the original constitution, which I agree with, as there was no mention of "seperation of church and state" before the 20th century, and the phrase was created in a private letter by Thomas Jefferson written to a church that he had a personal disagreement with. The believe that the first amendment implies the prevention of a church state, which would be like a "Church of England" type atomsphere, which is what many of the founding fathers of this country had problems with. You may disagree with this point of view, but your disagreement makes the view no less valid. To twist their pronounced religious affiliation as "theocratic" is totally misguided.

Umm, having a country ruled by laws with a "Biblical foundation" most certainly means "ruled by religion". Just because the Consitution doesn't say it word for word does not at all mean there was no separation. The Constitution is virtually absent of any mention of religion (except to exclude it as a requirement for office and in the 1st amendment) and God is nowhere to be found, let alone anything even hinting at Christianity. The great 19th century orator Robert Ingersoll explains the reasons for this perfectly. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/god_in_constitution.html

 

[jamesrage]

HIV / AIDS is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting HIV / AIDS.

I actually agree with this

I think this is going too far. To say that our government is "encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct" is outrageous. Should criminal penalties apply to people who transmit HIV to a knowing person?

I do not think it goes to far.If you ruin someone's life like that then you should go to prison.

Do you think this meant to be an attack on homosexuals?

I think it is meant to be an attack on anyone who engages in promiscuous sexual conduct.