and 49 in hospitals, convicted prostitutes and intravenous drug abusers, as well as clients of clinics for sexually transmitted diseases. According to Rovner, "Dannemeyer says officials have been viewing the epidemic as a civil rights issue rather than a public health problem, placing the rights of those with the AIDS virus above the rights of the unexposed to remain AIDS-free." This clearly shows a hierarchy of values, placing the health of the uninfected majority above the civil rights of the AIDS victims.
Those opposing this point of view think that "sodomy statutes and other laws against homosexuality serve as a powerful brake on the most potent weapon we have against AIDS, the use of a vigorous public education campaign." They oppose legal moralism because it seems to pass judgment on specific groups such as homosexuals, if not blatantly, then subtly through the supporting of laws that could be construed as anti-gay. Those for education oppose morality in law because "serious restrictions on liberty cannot rest solely on appeals to tradition, even when backed by majority approval."
Beauchamp has rejected the legal moralist's solution to the spread of AIDS through laws based on moral judgments. His article shows a belief that restricting freedoms should not come from private motives such as prejudice and the belief that the majority is right on the basis of traditional social beliefs. From the political perspective, freedom with responsibility is seen as important: "For their side, homosexuals need to take the leadership and to call for self-imposed restrictions." Health statistics in San Francisco and New York suggest that thousands of gays are altering their lifestyles. Many gay leaders have begun to repudiate the fast-lane life. "Political prudence suggests that, if gay people want gains against discrimination in housing, employment, medical care, and insurance, their leaders should speak out against the da...