Oklahoma to require STD test to get marriage license...

[dgiharris]

Having an STD test is fine, requiring that you pass in order to get married is not fine.

There are tons of STDs that are treatable and/or that are not life threatening and don't get passed to offspring.

Likewise, just because you are infected with a disease shouldn't mean your rights no longer apply. If you and your partner both consent and are fine with whatever disease one or the other has, then the state has no right to tell you that you can or cannot get married.

If you have cancer should you have the right to get married?

how about own property? How about own a gun? How about the right to free speech?

I'm being serious. Either our rights and liberties apply to us at all times or they don't. You can't just willy nilly start cherry picking stuff that does or does not apply just because your delicate morals and sensibilities are butthurt...

 

[Inkachu]

Having an STD test is fine, requiring that you pass in order to get married is not fine.

There are tons of STDs that are treatable and/or that are not life threatening and don't get passed to offspring.

Likewise, just because you are infected with a disease shouldn't mean your rights no longer apply. If you and your partner both consent and are fine with whatever disease one or the other has, then the state has no right to tell you that you can or cannot get married.

If you have cancer should you have the right to get married?

how about own property? How about own a gun? How about the right to free speech?

I'm being serious. Either our rights and liberties apply to us at all times or they don't. You can't just willy nilly start cherry picking stuff that does or does not apply just because your delicate morals and sensibilities are butthurt...

The difference here is that STD's are considered a communicable disease, they don't just affect the individual.

It's interesting, though, that in the five years before the bill was repealed last time in 2004, over 300,000 people had been tested, and only 5 cases of syphilis were found. However, it's relevant to note that this new measure would test for multiple STD's, not just syphilis, and we already know from the CDC that approximately 80 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, which is now the most common STD.

It's also interesting that this measure was put forth by a Senator, and not the Oklahoma Health Department.

So I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I don't like the way it's come into being, it seems shady and underhanded. However, I don't have any objections to there being a testing requirement for a marriage license in general.

It'll be interesting to see if this bill passes into law or not.

 

[keith99]

And they enforce them?

Edit-after a quick check, it seems Montana is the only state that actually does blood tests anymore, though it doesn't seem that having anything at all would stop the issue of a marriage license. I could be wrong though.

My understanding of the historic requirement is that it required getting tested.

That is very different from requiring a particular result of the test.

 

[Maren]

Yep.

The tests may not be as meaningful now since abstinence before marriage is no longer the norm, if it ever was.

This to me is the real point -- what percentage that file for a marriage license today have never had sex with their partner? Maybe 10 percent? And those 10% would seem as if they should be the least likely to have an STD. Basically, this testing seems to serve no real purpose, since likely the partner is already infected if the other has a communicable STD.

Still, if a couple feels the need for the government to sanction their marriage, then it is not unreasonable for the government to set conditions for its sanction.

Sanction isn't the right word as it infers "approval". The government doesn't sanction a couples marriage, it basically only recognizes that the couple consider themselves bonded as life partners. It is churches and religious beliefs that infer anything more than that.

 

[Maren]

If the person consents to the test, they're probably signing something that gives the state permission to gather the information and inform their partner if it comes back positive.

Again, if you're clean and not trying to sneak into a marriage without disclosing a communicable disease to your spouse, you've got nothing to worry about.

Yes, there is no HIPAA violation because the applicant is giving permission to share the information. At best an applicant could sue, claiming they shouldn't have to divulge medical information in order to obtain a license. I don't believe they would be successful, however; the courts generally give rather broad leeway to states reasoning for needing the information, so long as it is not discriminatory.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Sanction isn't the right word as it infers "approval". The government doesn't sanction a couples marriage, it basically only recognizes that the couple consider themselves bonded as life partners. It is churches and religious beliefs that infer anything more than that.

Hi, Maren.

Sanction is, I believe, the appropriate term. Government confers certain benefits on those who are married, hence the current drive for inclusion. The most obvious benefits conferred on those who marry are monetary in the form of significant tax benefits at both the federal and state levels.

 

[craigerNY]

Why should someone with herpes be barred from getting married?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Why should someone with herpes be barred from getting married?

Noting that despite the hyperbole of the Daily KOS, Oklahoma's bill does not preclude issuance of a license to persons who are infected.

Senate Bill 733

Persons seeking to obtain a marriage license shall first file with the court clerk a certificate or affidavit from a duly-licensed physician, licensed to practice within this state, stating that each party has been given a blood test, as may be necessary for the discovery of syphilis and other communicable or infectious diseases, made not more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of such application to obtain a marriage license and that, in the opinion of the physician, the persons named therein are not infected with syphilis or other communicable or infectious diseases or, if infected, that such diseases are not in a stage which may be communicable to the marriage partner.​

Obviously, a disease in remission would not be communicable, nor would a disease with which both partners are already infected.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So were a lot of things. Slavery, for example.

I think what he is saying is that it was normal and now it will be back; whereas slavery likely never will, as there is no federal law that this have to happen or not.

 

[jayem]

Yep.

The tests may not be as meaningful now since abstinence before marriage is no longer the norm, if it ever was.

Still, if a couple feels the need for the government to sanction their marriage, then it is not unreasonable for the government to set conditions for its sanction.

But those conditions should have a rational purpose, and the proposed law should actually effect that purpose. It's good for sexually active people to be tested for STIs, but linking it to a marriage license application is waaaay after the fact. At which point, it should be up to the partners to decide if the marriage will go on. And anyway, how will denying a marriage license prevent anyone from spreading an infection further? I don't see how this law accomplishes anything of value.

Did the legislature hear testimony from epidemiologists, or public health experts before writing this bill? If the desire is to limit the incidence of STI's, wouldn't that be a rational thing to do?

 

[Inkachu]

FWIW I don't believe having an active infection should bar someone from getting married. As long as both people are aware and in agreement, if they wanna get married and wallow in their disease together, let them.

 

[NightHawkeye]

But those conditions should have a rational purpose, and the proposed law should actually effect that purpose. It's good for sexually active people to be tested for STIs, but linking it to a marriage license application is waaaay after the fact. At which point, it should be up to the partners to decide if the marriage will go on. And anyway, how will denying a marriage license prevent anyone from spreading an infection further? I don't see how this law accomplishes anything of value.

Did the legislature hear testimony from epidemiologists, or public health experts before writing this bill? If the desire is to limit the incidence of STI's, wouldn't that be a rational thing to do?

Granted, testing before marriage is a throwback to the past but, realistically, when else could testing be mandated? When one graduates from high school? When one graduates college? Every year? Every five years after age ten?

As for whether the Oklahoma bill is well-written, I tend to think it's simplicity is good and perhaps a few minor changes would be well served.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

The government shouldn't be regulating marriage period. Marriage as I have known it has become a joke. I honesty do not want to go after my Bachelors degree and become ordained with this joke of a government, state or otherwise, trying to tell me what marriage is and how or who I can marry.

How is the law written? if she test positive and I want to marry her anyhow, tough cookie and get married in another state? That is bullplop.

 

[CQmethodist]

Noting that despite the hyperbole of the Daily KOS, Oklahoma's bill does not preclude issuance of a license to persons who are infected.

Persons seeking to obtain a marriage license shall first file with the court clerk a certificate or affidavit from a duly-licensed physician, licensed to practice within this state, stating that each party has been given a blood test, as may be necessary for the discovery of syphilis and other communicable or infectious diseases, made not more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of such application to obtain a marriage license and that, in the opinion of the physician, the persons named therein are not infected with syphilis or other communicable or infectious diseases or, if infected, that such diseases are not in a stage which may be communicable to the marriage partner.​

Obviously, a disease in remission would not be communicable, nor would a disease with which both partners are already infected.

Of course, some diseases, such as HIV, never go into remission, and the question of whether HIV positive individuals on HAART are infectious or not is still undetermined (though things look good). The law should not disallow an HIV-negative person from marrying an HIV-positive person.

Particularly not in the age of Truvada.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Of course, some diseases, such as HIV, never go into remission, and the question of whether HIV positive individuals on HAART are infectious or not is still undetermined (though things look good). The law should not disallow an HIV-negative person from marrying an HIV-positive person.

The plain text interpretation of the bill would not prohibit such a marriage, IMHO.

 

[CQmethodist]

There should be absolutely no chance that such a marriage would be denied. There is no rational or reasonable reason for doing so.

 

[Supreme]

I seriously hope the OP is aware that STDs are just as prevalent in the straight population, and that by singling out gays is borderline homophobic?

That issue aside, this seems waaaay too Orwellian for my liking. STDs are serious health issues that a future spouse should be aware of, but it's not the government's job to deny marriage licenses to patients with STIs.

 

[CQmethodist]

Certain STDs are more prevalent amongst gay men, others amongst straight people. Lesbians are generally the least likely to contract an STD.

The main "STD" that concerns me here is HIV. A large percentage of gay couples are sero-discordant, and should not be denied their legal right to marry because of that fact.

 

[loveofourlord]

I think you're making a really big stretch here trying to connect things that don't really seem related at all.

I've not seen anyone saying that gay people have higher STD rates, OR that this test is meant to target gays or people with AIDS, when you've got plenty of other STD's out there. HPV is the most common STD on the planet, and is spread by both gays and straights.

How is this test a "hurdle" for anyone? It's a needle stick. It doesn't stop anyone from getting married. It simply means your spouse-to-be will be informed if you've been lying about your status. Maybe THAT will be a hurdle to getting down the aisle, but in the case of someone lying about their status, I'd be happy to see the victim able to make an informed decision about whether to stay in the relationship or not.

it says if tested posative the marriage license can be denied, up to the descretion of the one isuing the license.

 

[loveofourlord]

I seriously hope the OP is aware that STDs are just as prevalent in the straight population, and that by singling out gays is borderline homophobic?

That issue aside, this seems waaaay too Orwellian for my liking. STDs are serious health issues that a future spouse should be aware of, but it's not the government's job to deny marriage licenses to patients with STIs.

Ehhhh, were talking mentality here, yes the rates of STD's are the same, the question is considering the likly mentality of the people proposing this law, and the last one two weeks ago requiring that you must get a license from clergy, what are they thinking about this law? You have two laws in two weeks that are trying to restrict who gets a marriage license, both shortly after supreme court pretty much said, "Yes gay marriage is going to be legal"

Remember states have been trying to "Ban" abortion under the guise of reasonable bills. Putting in requirements that sound reasonable but have 0 purpose other then the shutdown all clinics in the state by putting rediculous requirements.

Can't ban gay marriage, okay were just going to say you need to get a license from a clergy member, and then pass a STD test, and if your posative it's up to the descretion of the person issuing the license if they accept it or not.