- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
From google........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked for the history of the blood test requirement to obtain a marriage license.
STATE LAW
State law requires a blood test as a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license (CGS § 46b-26). The parties intending to marry must undergo a standard laboratory blood test for syphilis. If the test is positive, the person must submit to a physical examination of the skin and appropriate mucous membranes. The law prohibits the issuance of the marriage license unless the application is accompanied by the written statement of a physician (or other designated health professionals) that the applicant is not infected with syphilis or in a stage of it that is communicable (§ 46b-26(a)).
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The blood test requirement has its origin in l935 legislation passed by the General Assembly (PA 192; S. 5149). There is little legislative history to draw on to determine the purpose of the blood test requirement. House and Senate debates were not transcribed in that era. Public hearing testimony supported the testing requirement, generally in order to prevent people with communicable syphilis from passing it on to their spouse and children.
One health official (Dr. Comfort) stated, “I am in favor of this. This is for the benefit of the man and woman and also for any child they might have. If they couldn’t afford it, the health department and clinics could do the work for them.” Another speaker urged some caution on the matter: “I would like to call attention to the possible danger in such legislation. It seems to me that it might well be classed with the birth control bill. The fear due to ignorance might have a tendency to lead to immoral conduct especially among young who know of their condition. I think the motive in back of this bill is good but there are other dangers which might lead into immoral action.”
Legal commentators have observed, “statutes requiring such tests have been upheld on the theory that the state has the power to prohibit the marriage of persons afflicted with loathsome or hereditary diseases which are liable to be transmitted to their spouses or inherited by their offspring” (52 Am. Jur. 2d, Marriage, Sec. 35).
A Connecticut Superior Court decision in l942 held that the fact that a marriage license applicant was not in a stage of syphilis that was communicable did not permit the issuance of the license where the woman was infected with syphilis which would be transmissible to her children; the state is as much interested in preventing the transmission of syphilis to the children of a marriage as it is in preventing the communication of the disease by the parties (Doe v. Doe, 11 Conn. Supp. 157 (l942)).
In l978, the General Assembly added a requirement that any woman less than 50 years old and capable of pregnancy applying for a license also has to be tested to see if she was immune to rubella (German measles). If she is not immune she must be so informed. But the law does not require an applicant to receive an immunization from rubella before a license can be issued. The license applicant, however, must be informed of “the consequences of such lack of immunity with respect to pregnancy” (§ 46b-26(e)).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked for the history of the blood test requirement to obtain a marriage license.
STATE LAW
State law requires a blood test as a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license (CGS § 46b-26). The parties intending to marry must undergo a standard laboratory blood test for syphilis. If the test is positive, the person must submit to a physical examination of the skin and appropriate mucous membranes. The law prohibits the issuance of the marriage license unless the application is accompanied by the written statement of a physician (or other designated health professionals) that the applicant is not infected with syphilis or in a stage of it that is communicable (§ 46b-26(a)).
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The blood test requirement has its origin in l935 legislation passed by the General Assembly (PA 192; S. 5149). There is little legislative history to draw on to determine the purpose of the blood test requirement. House and Senate debates were not transcribed in that era. Public hearing testimony supported the testing requirement, generally in order to prevent people with communicable syphilis from passing it on to their spouse and children.
One health official (Dr. Comfort) stated, “I am in favor of this. This is for the benefit of the man and woman and also for any child they might have. If they couldn’t afford it, the health department and clinics could do the work for them.” Another speaker urged some caution on the matter: “I would like to call attention to the possible danger in such legislation. It seems to me that it might well be classed with the birth control bill. The fear due to ignorance might have a tendency to lead to immoral conduct especially among young who know of their condition. I think the motive in back of this bill is good but there are other dangers which might lead into immoral action.”
Legal commentators have observed, “statutes requiring such tests have been upheld on the theory that the state has the power to prohibit the marriage of persons afflicted with loathsome or hereditary diseases which are liable to be transmitted to their spouses or inherited by their offspring” (52 Am. Jur. 2d, Marriage, Sec. 35).
A Connecticut Superior Court decision in l942 held that the fact that a marriage license applicant was not in a stage of syphilis that was communicable did not permit the issuance of the license where the woman was infected with syphilis which would be transmissible to her children; the state is as much interested in preventing the transmission of syphilis to the children of a marriage as it is in preventing the communication of the disease by the parties (Doe v. Doe, 11 Conn. Supp. 157 (l942)).
In l978, the General Assembly added a requirement that any woman less than 50 years old and capable of pregnancy applying for a license also has to be tested to see if she was immune to rubella (German measles). If she is not immune she must be so informed. But the law does not require an applicant to receive an immunization from rubella before a license can be issued. The license applicant, however, must be informed of “the consequences of such lack of immunity with respect to pregnancy” (§ 46b-26(e)).
So... AIDS is okay, but Syphillis is? And lots of other STDs are okay, but Syphillis isn't? And the law can say that I can't get married because someone has a disease!? WTF IS THAT. :|
nik
Nik, on this issue I think you have your head up your ass. There is a multitude of valid reasons for requiring blood tests. Why are you against them?
FSCKING READ, PEOPLE. I'm not against the blood tests. I AM against THE STATE SAYING WHETHER OR NOT I CAN GET MARRIED.
nik
Nik, I can read just fine and I read all your post in this thread. You said that you were against the state requiring blood test for a marriage certificate. The blood test was what you had a problem with. The state made the law, but you have a problem with a blood test law and not the state. If you don't like it, petition it to be changed.
Seriously... I don't get it. I post that I don't care about whether or not they test me for sh|t, that I only care about whether the state can tell me whether I can get married or not... and people get their BVDs in a bunch because they think I'm gettin all pissed cuz I don't want to take a blood test
nik
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
He a problem with a state having the authority over marriage. Basically, who is the government to say that one person can't marry another? I think this issue has been resolved in earlier posts..apparently not everyone reads the entire thread.
I have a problem with mandatory blood tests. Optional is cool..but should the government have a law saying you *must* have a blood test before you are married? I don't think it's the government's place..maybe it's just me..but apparently not.
nik,
you need to go to vegas and have a nefmeet wedding. Invite all of ATOT (only about 15 will show up). They'll bring you PC games for wedding gifts.
Then you can go back to Oregon and have a nice fake ceremony for the relatives.
you need to go to vegas and have a nefmeet wedding. Invite all of ATOT (only about 15 will show up). They'll bring you PC games for wedding gifts.
Then you can go back to Oregon and have a nice fake ceremony for the relatives.
werk: :frown: I dunno what I was smoking in that thread, but people keep throwing that in my face like it's the hottest thing to do. Fscking bastards. :|
nik
nik
Did I make da wittle baby mad? Awww...
Nik, you're sooo...young and impetuous. Do you realize that in your youthful objection to a blood test before getting married on the grounds that the state is 'overstepping its authority' you completely missed the fact that the state REQUIRES you to get its permission to marry in the form of a MARRIAGE LICENSE? Sorta like you're not seeing the forest because of those pesky trees in your way? lol!
Its called "society has rules, this is one of the rules that society thought to be worth while" now stop yer crying already.
Although, you do have a point about AIDS vs. Syphilis. But you must understand that in 1935, there was no powerful syphilis lobby as there was with homosexuals and AIDs in the 1980's.
No, you didn't make da widdle baby mad. You pissed off a full grown male with a bad attitude. And, no, I didn't overlook the license agreement. A license for a few bucks is one thing. The state saying "no, you can't mary the woman that you love because your blood doesn't match" is what I have a problem with. Read, dickwad.
Yes, and until I found out that it was "invented" in 1935, I didn't know that it was "invented" in 1935 and thus didn't have an idea about what possibly could have effected the law's creation.
Goddamn... go to hell fcsknut :|
nik
There are several reasons the US has cited when denying a person the right to marry. Syphilis, other marriages, homosexuality. To many, these reasons appear to be utterly ridiculous, but there are some out there who firmly believe that these restrictions need to be in place, and they just happen to have been making the laws at the time. The only way to reverse these restrictions is to get the laws reversed or expanded. If you're so uptight about this, get a petition started and get it to several of your state lawmakers.
Why? If you had been READING THE DAMN THREAD, you'd know that it's not required in my state.
nik
Ah, but you apparently thought it was "ok" for the state to say "no, you can't marry the woman that you love because you didn't pay us a few bucks for a license" since your only objection was the blood test requirement, you completely overlooked the fact that the state REQUIRES you to get its permission before marrying in the form of a license.
Well, that certainly clears things up! Thanks...err...um...I think.
C'mon, tell us the truth, the TRUE reason for your objection is that you're afraid of needles and hate the sight of blood...right?
It's okay for the state to charge me a few bucks for a license. They do it for hunters. It helps bring revenue in to offset my taxes. Other people did it for me, I'll do it for them. My objection isn't the blood test requirement. My objection is the state deciding if I can marry or not based on health that may not even come into play during some people's marriage. I said that I didn't overlook the license. That means I didn't overlook it. Stop being a fscking kunt. Simply because I don't acknowledge it doesn't mean I overlooked it.
nik
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter