The play - and presumably the movie version - begins in the fall of 1985 and ends in February 1986, with an epilogue in 1990. Here are some articles to help put the story and events into historical and legal context.
All photos copyright HBO Films.
|
AIDS in the 1980s (last updated November 29, 2003) (back to top)
Thankfully, much has changed in terms of how the United States reacts to AIDS since the mid-1980s. Angels in America is set from the fall 1985 to early 1986, and it depicts and evokes a very different time.
By early 1986, people were frightened about how AIDS was transmitted and were debating extreme measures such as keeping infected children like Ryan White out of school and closing down bathhouses where gay men would socialize, President Ronald Reagan had not given a major speech on AIDS and his administration had yet to treat AIDS as a major threat to public health, and AZT, the first anti-AIDS drug, was still in the test phases and not widely available. The timeline below puts some AIDS-related events into context, with the time of the play indicated by red on the timescale.
New York was hit particularly hard by the AIDS crisis, as was San Francisco. By the end of 1985, almost 6,000 people had died of AIDS in New York alone.
AIDS was first identified in 1981 when doctors in California reported seeing a few dozen homosexual men who had died of Kaposi's sarcoma, a rare form of cancer, and had suffered abnormalities of the immune system. Researchers then established by 1984 that AIDS was caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). By 1985, health officials were warning people about the dangers of unsafe sex and the sharing of intravenous needles, but by then many were already infected.
For more on the Reagan administration's handling of the AIDS crisis, go here. For more on AZT, go here.
Reagan and AIDS (last updated November 29, 2003) (back to top)
The Reagan administration has often been criticized for its handling of the AIDS crisis. The disease was first identified in 1981 and resulted in almost 6,000 deaths by the summer of 1985, but it was not the subject of a White House report until October 1986 and President Ronald Reagan did not give a major speech devoted to the subject until May 1987.
Critics say that the Reagan administration wanted to avoid public discussion of sexual practices and drug use and thus acted too slowly, failing to treat AIDS as a public crisis and failing to provide adequate funding on education efforts, treatment and research.
According to Edmund Morris's authorized biography of Reagan, Reagan was unconcerned by AIDS and knew very little about it at least until the death of actor Rock Hudson in October 1985. Reagan still found AIDS "a fit subject for humor" as late as December 1986, but seems to have exhibited more sympathy by 1987. Reagan called AIDS a "tragic thing" and a "horrible disease" in a May 27, 1989 interview with Morris, and speculated around this time that "maybe the Lord brought down this plague" because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
Morris notes that Reagan was not necessarily prejudiced against homosexuals but generally disapproved of sex out of wedlock and what he considered untraditional values. Reagan told Morris : "I think people were happier and better off when there wasn't the tremendous plague of single motherhood cases or abortions - the thousands and thousands and thousands that take place regularly now and, uh, whether it's going to take such a tragic thing as that disease … that horrible disease to return us to a sense of values that were very much a part of our generation."
Reagan gave only one major speech devoted to AIDS and did not do so until May 1987, just days after being interviewed by Morris. In that speech, Reagan called for routine testing of applicants for marriage licenses and for mandatory testing of selected groups. "Just as most individuals don't know they carry the virus, no one knows to what extent the virus has infected our entire society. AIDS is surreptitiously spreading throughout our population, and yet we have no accurate measure of its scope. It is time we knew exactly what we were facing. And that is why I support routine testing," he said.
At the same time, many prominent sources were calling for greater action by the federal government.
The Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, became the Reagan administration's most active spokesman in the AIDS crisis when he released a 36-page report on October 22, 1986, in which he called for explicit public education about AIDS and the use of condoms, criticized proposals for quarantining AIDS patients, and called for tolerance. Koop had not become a member of the Assistant Secretary's Executive Task Force on AIDS until 1985, and was not asked to produce his report until early 1986.
"Overnight," Koop later told an interviewer for the book Plagues and Politics, "I lost the constituencies I'd had, which included right-wing conservatives, right-wing religious bodies, pro-life people and I gained all the liberals and moderates that weren't already with me. And I got the blessings of the people in public health."
A week later, the National Academy of Sciences released a 390-page report that called the federal government's response "inadequate" in many key aspects, such as in planning anti-AIDS efforts and in educating the public on how to avoid infection. The report called for a massive public-education campaign, funding of $2 billion a year by 1990, and "perhaps the most wide-ranging and intensive efforts ever made against an infectious disease."
Sources: Edmund Morris, Dutch: A memoir of Ronald Reagan (Random House, 1999). C. Everett Koop's October 1986 report on the AIDS epidemic is on-line here. Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The story of the United States Public Health Service (Basic Books, 1989). Philip M. Boffey, Reagan urges wide AIDS testing but does not call for compulsion, New York Times, June 1, 1987. Philip M. Boffey, Federal efforts on AIDS criticized as gravely weak, New York Times, October 30, 1986.
AZT (last updated November 29, 2003) (back to top)
Some of the plot of Angels in America revolves around AZT, the first drug that prolonged the lives of AIDS patients and the first AIDS drug given federal approval. AZT had just been approved for a small round of human testing when the play begins in the fall of 1985 and it was just starting a second, wider test when the play ends in early 1986.
Azidothymidine, or AZT, was first developed in the 1960s as an anti-cancer drug, but scientists discovered in 1984-85 that AZT could inhibit the duplication of the AIDS virus under lab conditions. AZT works by preventing the AIDS virus from duplicating inside body cells. It thus helps keep the AIDS virus in check but it is not a cure and it can result in toxic side effects.
The Food and Drug Administration gave permission in June 1985 for human trials, and the first AIDS patient received AZT on July 3, 1985. The first trial, which involved just 33 patients, had promising results and was run under normal experimental conditions which call for some patients to receive AZT and some to receive a placebo in order to act as a control group.
The second trial began in February 1986 but was stopped in September because the patients taking AZT were doing so much better than those who were taking the placebo that it was considered unethical and unfair to continue following normal experimental protocols. Only one of the 144 patients taking AZT had died as of September 1986, compared to 19 of the 137 patients receiving the placebo.
The FDA then moved quickly to make AZT available to AIDS patients. First, the FDA issued a treatment protocol for AZT within a week of learning of the different mortality results, so that more than 4,000 patients were treated with AZT during the next six months. Second, the FDA gave AZT full approval as the first anti-AIDS drug in March 1987. AIDS patients still had problems getting AZT due to its high cost, but the drug was now at least widely available.
The FDA also adopted new regulations to make new drugs available quicker for patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases. In May 1987, the FDA issued new regulations codifying the circumstances in which investigational agents were given to seriously ill patients not to gain information about safety and effectiveness but for treatment.
Sources: Irvin Molotsky, U.S. approves drug to prolong lives of AIDS patients, New York Times, March 21, 1987. Jane Gross, AIDS victims' frantic search for cure, New York Times, May 15, 1987. Ken Flieger, FDA finds new ways to speed treatments to patients (FDA Consumer Special Report, January 1995) (on-line here.
Roy Cohn (last updated November 30, 2003) (back to top)
Roy Cohn first gained prominence in the 1950s for his role in prosecuting Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and then as chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations into Communism's influence in the government, and he remained a controversial lawyer for the rest of his life.
As depicted in the play and movie, Cohn was ultimately disbarred in New York in 1986 by a five-judge panel which unanimously found his conduct in three legal matters all more than a decade old stemming to be unethical and unprofessional. Cohn reportedly did not pay back a loan from a client for years, misappropriated a client's escrow property, and pressured a dying client of questionable mentality to amend his will in Cohn's favor. The panel also found Cohn's statement on a 1982 application for the District of Columbia bar to be untruthful and to constitute professional misconduct.
Cohn long denied the substance of the allegations and argued that his disbarment was orchestrated by his enemies in the "establishment bar." Others criticized the disbarment for its timing; columnist William Safire criticized Cohn's enemies in an August 4, 1986 column for "waiting until a combative lawyer was on his deathbed and unable personally to contest 15-year-old charges of unethical conduct."
Some details as depicted in the play and movie were different in real life. In the play, Cohn is disbarred in February 1986 and then dies in New York very soon after. In real life, Cohn was disbarred on June 23, 1986 and then checks into a National Institutes of Health clinical center in Bethesda, Maryland, where he died on August 2.
Cohn began his legal career at the young age of 21 as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan. He gained prominence for his role in the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were accused of passing nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, convicted, sentenced to death, and ultimately executed in 1953.
Cohn worked for McCarthy's investigation subcommittee in 1953 and 1954; Cohn and McCarthy were charged in 1954 with trying to obtain preferential treatment for a colleague who was drafted but were both cleared. Cohen left McCarthy's subcommittee in 1954 and then went into private practice. He developed a reputation as a fierce advocate and represented a variety of clients including Donald Trump, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, and alleged mob boss Tony Salerno.
Cohn remained controversial within his own profession. He was indicted and acquitted three times during his career and had long-running conflicts with the Internal Revenue Service row. Esquire magazine reportedly called Cohn a "legal executioner" and the American Lawyer magazine reportedly called him "an embarrassment."
Cohn long denied that he was gay or that he had contracted AIDS, instead saying that he had liver cancer.
Sources: Martin Gottlieb, New York court disbars Roy Cohn on charges of unethical conduct, New York Times, June 24, 1986. Albin Krebs, Roy Cohn, aide to McCarthy and fiery lawyer, dies at 59, New York Times, August 3, 1986. William Safire, About Roy Cohn, August 4, 1986.
Watkins v. United States Army (last updated November 29, 2003) (back to top)
In the play, Louis attacks Joe by going through some of the cases that Joe actually has written for the federal judge he clerks for (a judicial clerk is generally a lawyer who helps research and draft opinions for the judge he or she works for). One case in particular was very real and still stands as one of the gay-rights movement's greatest legal triumphs even though it was quickly taken away.
In real life, the case was called Watkins v. United States Army, not Stephens v. United States. And in real life, the case was decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1988 and 1989, not by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the early 1980s as the play has it.
The case centered on Perry Watkins, who enlisted in the army in 1967 at the age of 19 and always was upfront about his homosexual tendencies. He served in the Army for 14 years and was widely praised for his service, even receiving a perfect score when rated by the Army for his performance and professionalism. His commanding officer called Watkins "one of our most respected and trusted soldiers" and several boards determined that his homosexuality had no effect on his service.
Nevertheless, Watkins was discharged and denied reinstatement in 1981 after the Army promulgated new regulations which mandated the disqualification of all homosexuals without regard to the length or quality of their service.
Watkins then challenged the discharge and denial of reenlistment as a violation of his constitutional rights, arguing that the Army's 1981 regulations constituted unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Legally, the case focused on whether sexual orientation is a "suspect classification" or as a "quasi-suspect classification" under constitutional law. Usually, federal courts uphold laws and regulations that might discriminate against some people as long as the laws and regulations have some rational basis, but courts require stronger justifications when laws and regulations discriminate against people for factors such as race that are considered "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" "classifications."
If sexual orientation is treated as a "suspect classification," then any laws or regulations that discriminate against homosexuals would be unconstitutional unless such laws or regulations are shown to be necessary means to achieving a compelling government interest.
The United States Supreme Court had not addressed the question of whether sexual orientation is a suspect classification as of the late 1980s and it still has not done so as of 2003. But it has long identified several factors to determine whether a group constitutes a suspect class under equal protection jurisprudence. Has the group suffered a history of purposeful discrimination? Is discrimination against such a group grossly unfair because it bears no relation to group members' ability to contribute to society, because the group faces prejudice, and because the group's defining trait is something immutable and not something the group's members chose for themselves? Is the group a "discrete and insular minority" that lacks the political power to obtain redress on its own?
Using such factors, a 2-1 majority on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that homosexuals constituted a suspect class, noting that the class had suffered a history of discrimination and that even if some homosexuals could change their sexual orientation, "the possibility of such a difficult and traumatic change does not make sexual orientation 'mutable' for equal protection purposes." These judges noted that the United States Supreme Court's 1986 decision to uphold sodomy laws was limited to criminalizing sodomy and did not necessarily punish people for being homosexuals.
This decision, if it had been allowed to stand, would have protected homosexuals from discriminatory laws as much as past decisions have protected blacks and other racial minorities.
The decision did not stand. In 1989, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals re-heard the case and decided it again in favor of Watkins, but on much narrower grounds. This time, the Ninth Circuit held that the Army should not be allowed to refuse to reenlist Watkins on the basis of his homosexuality because the Army had long known that Watkins was a homosexual. "This is a case where equity cries out and demands that the Army be estopped from refusing to reenlist Watkins on the basis of his homosexuality," Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson wrote.
Watkins still won but the larger movement lost. By deciding the case on narrower grounds, the earlier decision was undone and did not set legal precedent in the Ninth Circuit or anywhere else in the United States.
More than a decade later, it is still unclear whether homosexuals would be considered a suspect class deserving of constitutional protection from discrimination. The United States Supreme Court could have finally decided the issue in 1996 when it ruled that Colorado's constitutional amendment prohibiting any governmental action to protect homosexual persons violated the U.S. Constitution. However, the United States Supreme Court made its decision in Romer v. Evans not on the grounds that homosexuals were a "suspect class" but because the Colorado amendment was irrational.
The Romer decision was a victory for gay-rights advocates but, again, ducked the larger question by deciding it on narrow grounds. The Romer decision invalidated one extreme law, but it provided little guidance for deciding whether other anti-homosexual laws that were at least a little more reasonable, such as the military's claim that active homosexuals undermine needed unity, are also unconstitutional.
Sources: Watkins v. United States Army, 847 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1988), decided on different grounds, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc).
|
|
|
The play by Tony Kushner becomes a 2003 HBO movie.
Roy Cohn actually was disbarred and died months after the time depicted in the play.
| |
