(MANHATTAN, Kan.) – The Red Cross urges all possible donors to roll up their sleeves and share a pint. So why is Greg Marquardt barred from donating?

It’s not a recent piercing, a tattoo or even travel to disease-ridden areas that bar him from donation. Marquardt, junior in social sciences, is gay, and since 1985, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American Red Cross have barred any man who has had “sexual contact with another man, even once since 1977,” from donating blood.

Stemming from the early 1980s scare, when AIDS was often referred to as GRID — Gay Related Immune Deficiency — the blanket ban has remained controversial as groups, in increasing numbers, are challenging its necessity.

The first time Marquardt went to give blood, he was asked about his sexual history. After his answer, he was turned away.

“I wasn’t going to lie to them,” he said.

Marquardt said the prohibitions are discriminatory, and with advancements in testing procedures for blood-borne diseases, everyone should be allowed to donate. Although given this history of HIV and AIDS, Marquardt said he could, partially, understand the initial reasons for the ban.

However, in the 21 years since the ban, Marquardt thinks changes should have been made.

“HIV isn’t just caused by homosexuality,” he said.

FDA prohibitions are contested by some groups, but all blood donor organizations in the U.S. abide by them.

“This is a recommendation, but it’s considered to be industry standard,” said Paul Richards, public affairs specialist for the FDA.

The FDA maintains responsibility for regulating the nation’s blood supply, Richards said, and is dedicated to ensuring that supply is composed of the safest blood possible.

Even as testing for blood-borne diseases increases in efficacy, the FDA remains adamant that screening is an essential part of risk-management, Richards said.

The results of the prohibition and its controversy are not unknown to the FDA, which most recently examined the policy on March 8, but did not change the policy.

“We understand fully that our recommendations … ultimately have the effect of deferring all gay men, and the FDA is not trying to imply by our recommendation that those individuals practice unsafe or risky behaviors or are HIV positive,” he said.

“Safety depends not only on donor testing but behavioral statistics.”

Statistically, gay men remain at the forefront of new HIV transmissions, with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates for 2004 blaming male-to-male sexual contact for 17,691 new cases, more than three times the 5,149 cases due to heterosexual contact.

The pioneers of Kansas State University’s ongoing blood drive, the Red Cross, are bound to the decisions of the FDA and do not lobby either way.

“We would remain neutral, and that’s pretty much what we do,” said Norma Dickson, director of communications for the Kansas Red Cross. “We offer no opinion or judgment on lifestyle choices.”

Although local groups are not exerting pressure, on March 10 — two days after the FDA’s reevaluation — the American Red Cross joined with the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers in petitioning the FDA to relax the guidelines.

There is wiggle-room in the FDA’s recommendations, though, with different rules for different activities.

ZLB Plasma Services has different standards for plasma donors than the Red Cross, assistant manager Jennifer Wilson said.

“We have some of the same; some of them are different,” she said.

Wilson declined to specify what the differences were, saying disclosure of that information could compromise screening procedures.

But Marquardt and other groups don’t want some exceptions to some rules — they want to give blood.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” he said. “If straight people are allowed to give blood, I don’t see why we can’t.”