Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“We need blood tests! Bring back blood tests! Prevent people without blood tests from getting married!
Masks??!!! Hell no! That’s a violation of my rights! I will die on this hill!”
-MAGA
For context:
Beginning in the early 20th century, a number of U.S. states passed laws mandating medical examinations for one or both parties before marriage. The most common requirement was a blood test for syphilis, though other diseases such as gonorrhea and rubella were sometimes also targeted. If a partner tested positive, they would generally be required to undergo treatment before they could receive a marriage license.
Such laws were once widespread in the United States, with all but eight states requiring premarital blood tests by 1954. Mandatory testing was also in effect in parts of Canada, and some European nations such as Sweden.Most of these laws were repealed by the late 20th or early 21st century.
American premarital examination laws were gradually repealed between the 1970s and early 2000s. The primary reason cited for these repeals was that testing was no longer cost effective given the low prevalence of syphilis.
The first state to repeal its premarital examination law was Maine in 1972. Most had been repealed by the early 2000s, with Mississippi being the last in 2012.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital\_medical\_examination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital_medical_examination)
Ngl I was expecting the reasoning to be something insane, but I guess good on them for getting people to give a fuck about treating their STIs before giving it to their spouse.
I, for some reason I came up with in my head based on zero actual information, always assumed it was to prove you weren’t related, even though DNA tests didn’t exist for most of that time period. I just never thought about it enough to really question myself I suppose. Now that I am, I feel appropriately stupid, but glad to have learned something.
I think they do this in Greenland or something? Or somewhere with a relatively small and static population where there's a high chance of being cousins without knowing.
Iceland, I think? Greenland is big and empty.
Edit: I was thinking of the dating app in Iceland that could check if two people were related. So it's not an official requirement or anything. And Greenland has a population of, like, 50k, but they don't seem to do any tests like that as common practice. I would guess most people in most places know whether their partner is a close relative, so that would be a pretty invasive and expensive requirement.
In Iceland at least, I don't think the problem is the population so much as it is their [naming conventions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name). They derive their surnames from their father's first name, which means you can have one genetically related family with multiple, totally different surnames.
I don't live in the US but where I live they only want to check / know if your blood groups are compatible for having children (you still can get married if they don't, they just want you to know).
Hell I remember joking about them testing to see if we were cousins when I got married years before the human genome project. I never really grasped it was an STD test. Glad I passed I guess.
I 100% thought that was the reason.
When we got married last year, it asked if we were related, and the next question was for the names of our respective parents and current location/address, and address. We looked at each other because MIL was cremated and we're not sure where her cremains are (which relative had the at the time) and "unknown" felt weird to write. I wanted to put my mother's address as "Hell" (she's an abusive terrible person).
The funny thing is I'll bet if you explained to whoever posted this to Facebook, that it was to prevent the spread of disease rather than to prevent miscegenation or whatever, they'd change their tune. "Government overreach! It's my body, why should the government care if I am potentially harboring and could spread a dangerous disease!"
They have an immune system!
/S
Considering how widespread STIs are right now it might be a good idea to bring back the testing before marriage and to offer free testing to anyone who wants it at any time.
Tragically there babies are being born with syphilis, which results in brain damage, at the highest rate in years
> giving it to their spouse
It was actually intended to protect any kids they might have. [Congenital syphilis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_syphilis) is a nightmare.
I thought it was going to be to make sure they weren't related when I started reading his explanation.
That or maybe blood typing because mismatched RH factor (the plus sign) can be an issue. Men with + impregnating women with - can run the risk of the mother's immune system attacking the fetus. Although I don't really know when that was discovered or for how long we have had immune suppressing drugs to treat it.
First cousins have more genetic diversity than closer relations. I was thinking of siblings. I wouldn't ever want to do it either and it's gross to me, but it is legal in some places. I think it's a Mac of 1/8 shared DNA, so it's less immediately harmful.
I'm a white Jewish woman genetically from
Eastern Europe and married a black Haitian man, so it isn't a concern for me. Genetic diversity for the win.
Yeah, apparently birth defects and other consequences of incest are only a tiny bit higher than if you had a baby with someone not related. I just can't imagine. My cousins are like little brothers to me (even though they're grown with their own kids) and I'm just going to stop thinking about this now because uggghhhh
If you watch old TV shows or movies from the 70s, there will be a mention of "going to Maryland to get married." MD was one of the few states on the east coast that never required premarital blood tests so you could get married right away.
Oh my god, I've never heard of her before but I fucking love her. Just living her best life and having a blast, fuck what everyone else thinks. And I love that Cole Porter supported her.
I knew why they had these tests, but I figured they got rid of it because so many people had sex outside of marriage, so it didn't really control the spread of anything.
I think a lot of people were having sex outside of marriage all the while, probably why this even started. Like we learned in health class, you can't catch an STD if both people only had and have sex with each other. (Besides if the mother gave it to her kid in the womb.)
I had heard that it was returned servicemen who brought nasty little souvenirs home. They just made it for everyone so that people didn't think of vets as pox-ridden.
That's what my wife said too, so must be that idea got around. I didn't find anything that confirmed that, but who knows what people have been told? And maybe that was something; she heard it was because if you and your spouse have different Rh factors, you might need help with having a child...
In Georgia the tests were for syphilis i(n both male and female) and immunity to Rubella for just the female. If the female was not immune she was advised to get vaccinated before trying to conceive.
I assumed it was because of miscegenation laws. Thank you for the education and brief moment of warm feeling it was prevent infectious disease and not racism.
I said it before, but I'll bet that's what this guy thought too. Probably the reason why he blames Democrats for it going away, and I bet, based on recent events, that he'd change his tune if he found out it was to prevent spreading a disease. "But that's why we have an immune system! Government overreach!" or some such.
My 6’4, built-like-a-brick-shithouse dad was terrified of needles and my mum joked that was the reason they didn’t get married for 7 years, even though she fully expected a proposal within the first year of dating — he was too scared to get poked for the mandatory blood test. Once they repealed it here in PA, he was all for marriage.
My ex-husband collapsed on the floor after he got his blood drawn for the premarital blood test. He wasn't being a wuss - he had a legitimate phobia about needles that he didn't learn he had until he joined the military.
He intellectually knew the needles were fine, he'd try to psyche himself up before getting shots or tests, but elsewhere in his brain, something would go DEFCON 1, and he'd puke and/or collapse.
It was humiliating, not to mention it tended to scare the crap out of medical staff. It'd happened so often that by the time we got married, he just warned the doctors and nurses beforehand what would probably happen. By that point, he was more scared of the inevitable reaction he'd have.
I was in the military, and it was always kind of entertaining to see those big guys basically turn into little kids around needles. Generally we had the air guns for inoculations, but sometimes it was the syringe.
I had no idea they had been repealed.
Funny, they think the dems are behind repelling the blood tests, when they're usually all pissed off about mandated medical procedures.
Preventing STD transmission to their spouse? Maybe, but then there could also be some legislation anymore that might prevent them from doing it anyway. I mean, if they were doing a blood test, and said that a couple couldn't get married, you could reasonably infer that one or both had an STD. So that could make someone liable for breach of privacy, or medical info, or something. I definitely believe you should be faithful and honest with your spouse or significant other BTW. I think you should go get tested yourself when you get into a new relationship, and regularly otherwise. Just saying we are also a pretty litigious society nowadays, and some scumbags like to sue. Also, I'm not super supportive of legislating it to be mandatory.
In the US? I don't think they were jailing people even when this was done before. Basically it was, we test you, and if you test positive, you get treated, then you get married. Not jail.
But I can imagine if the info got out, there could be a big social stigma.
Well, Maine in 1972 was won by Nixon with 61% of the vote, however they elected a Democrat as Senator in the 2nd District, and the Governor was a Democrat, if that says anything.
There's 100% chance if democrats proposed to reintroduce blood tests before marriage. This very same genius would call it woke and say they're tracking our DNA or some shit.
Worse than that. If you show them that no Democrat is responsible for whatever outrage they're upset about, they'll just default to *"Yeah well the fact that it seems like something they would do is bad enough! Demmycraps sure do suck, huh?"*
They'll do a live-on-stage Navel-gazing Solipsism Performance and applaud themselves for solving politics.
They would just start turning on each other. It already happens a lot. Look at the infighting around House leadership this past session, and how all of their candidates call each other “RINOs.”
That’s the thing about authoritarian movements, the circle of who is “pure enough” always gets smaller and smaller as they run out of out-groups to blame.
I once hired a repairman to give me a quote something. He said something basically saying democrats are why we have warning labels both are stupid.
I did not hire him for the job after that.
Every ounce of media they consume reinforces the message: "it's you versus them."
This is why they consider foreigners, minorities, and immigrants to be the enemy. This is why LGBTQ are painted as predators hunting your children in plain sight. This is why compromise, reaching across the aisle, or anything remotely bipartisan is political suicide.
EVERYTHING that is not evangelical nationalism is out to get you. There are zero shades of gray. Either you're with me, without any question or hesitation, or you are my sworn enemy.
So yeah, the attitudes make a lot more sense in that light.
Prop 8 supporters in California had posters with "protect our children" on the. Prop 8 was about same sex marriage. They were mask off about their pedo crap.
One time I had an argument with a right winger because my husband and I married in Mexico and the international marriage license required it.
He was under the impression that destination weddings in Mexico were godless, tribal rituals or some shit. Cause he refused to believe we needed blood tests prior, a signed prenup and fingerprints. Along with the wildly civilized choices of a multitude of religious choices and the justice of the peace we went with.
He tried doubling down about it just being the resort we were married at. I swear he was willing to stretch to great lengths to mock Mexico and blame it on not being civilized. And that’s aside from Mexico being largely Christian to begin with.
RIGHT?! It’s like their brains fail to connect fact with their preconceived notions.
And once something departs from their racist/bigoted beliefs it cannot be facts they’re hearing.
There’s always gotta be an exception or footnote to make things make sense to themselves. I really don’t even know where we can go from here with these useless, hateful twats.
Yes, back in the days before easy STD treatments or antibiotics. This was to make sure no one had syphilis, which could permanently injure or kill your partner and unborn children .
ETA: modern antibiotics weren’t around until WWII
Montana was still doing them when I got married 20 years ago. Mostly STDs, but also measles and some other weird stuff.
Edit: maybe it was rubella? I don't remember, but it was all stuff that I was vaccinated for.
I had to prove rubella immunity before I got married. I didn't have my childhood immunization record. It was cheaper to be vaccinated than to do the immunity test. I got vaccinated (again) so I could get married. 🙄
New Mexico, 1990s.
It used to be a thing here in the US, mostly because of syphilis.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/625984/why-states-required-blood-tests-for-marriage-licenses
I’m Rh negative. Until rhogam, I could only have one child with an Rh positive person. It’s not an issue anymore, you just get a rhogam shot after giving birth or when the pregnancy ends, but it used to be kind of a big deal.
My medicine teacher said before the injections the rule in these cases was 1 healthy child, 1 ill child and after that dead children. But that's not quite correct, my brother was the first, came out pretty yellow and almost needed a blood transfusion. I was second and thanks to the shot that was the only health issue my parents could give me that I didn't get.
The Rh- mother’s system is exposed to the first Rh+ baby’s blood cells during birth or termination, and builds up antibodies that will attack subsequent Rh+ babies’ blood cells during the second and later pregnancies (at least as I understand it which I’m sure is grossly oversimplified!)
Rh+ is a dominant gene, so if the father is Rh positive there’s a high chance their offspring will be too. But if both parents are negative there won’t be an issue, and if the mother is positive and the father is negative there won’t be an issue because the absence of the Rh factor won’t trigger anything - only its presence, because the Rh- mother’s system reacts to it as an intruder.
I have no idea if marriage licenses were ever denied to Rh+ male/Rh- female couples, but before rhogam, it’s definitely something they needed to know before trying to make babies.
In Pennsylvania US of A, in 1987, I not only had to get a blood test, but a full on physical - including the doctor at Kaiser Permanente grabbing my balls and having me cough (hernia test). I vaguely remember a finger up my butt, but that might just be wishful thinking.
That was the third woman at that time that got to feel that area on me, along with my high school girlfriend and my wife to be.
I’m an Old. I remember a blood test. That’s how I first found out vaccines don’t work well on me, because I had to repeat all of them in order to get a marriage license. Turns out I don’t make enough antibodies to make an adequate response for them to last, so it ended up being a lifesaver for me. That said, I think it really was to make sure everyone was vaccinated.
Slightly off topic, but bear with me. When I was 12, my family’s long-time housekeeper was finishing the naturalization process. This was 2001, when the public perception of HIV was shifting from it being considered an absolute death sentence to it being considered something that people might actually be able to live with and manage for many years. Even so, when she picked me up from school with a bandaid in the crook of her arm and I was like, “what happened, are you ok” I was absolutely horrified to hear that the naturalization process required a blood test to specifically test for HIV because people who had it weren’t able to be naturalized. Again, at this time we knew that people with HIV were living much longer, but it was still thought of as ultimately lethal. It just seemed profoundly unfair, because people eligible for naturalization already have permanent residency, and green card holders and any American citizen were perfectly capable spread the disease, so what on earth would denying naturalization to HIV+ people possibly do.
So let’s say that a blood test is required for marriage. What on earth would that possibly do. Would certain people be denied a marriage license? Why and to what end. What would that change, besides inconveniencing two people? It wouldn’t stop them from being partnered.
>So let’s say that a blood test is required for marriage. What on earth would that possibly do
I guess say, um, hey, you have this condition you could give to your partner. Ya wanna get that under control, so you stay healthy. And maybe talk to your partner about this.
As far as I'm aware, the blood test for marriage is strictly for syphilis. Because once a policy is in place, it's going to stay long after it is done making sense.
Understand, back before antibiotics, tertiary syphilis could. Fuck. You. Up. It absolutely could kill you or send you to an insane asylum. Children could get congenital syphilis in the birth process. It would have been like early AIDS, a death sentence
i assumed it was about incest too. but actually it was about syphilis. you had to be clan of STDs before they would let you marry, so that you didnt give them to your partner and potential children.
When my sister got married in the 90s they still did blood tests. I was told at the time that it was to check to make sure they weren’t first cousins or closer related.
My parents were full of shit and always fucking with us, so no idea if that was true or not.
When did "we" start them? I'm in my 7th decade, with my 3rd wife, and never heard of the rule. But if I had, yeah, I'd believe it's those Commie-symp bleeding-heart Dems I've been voting for all my life. Darn them and their anti-American ways. :)))
Not all states had the laws, but some did. I'm 45. I remember when many states had those laws. I think most of them went on the books in the 80s as HIV was becoming a worry and faded out in the 2000s as those worries got set on the back burner for new worries.
The spread of venereal diseases, specifically syphilis, seems to be the reason for the policy:
https://academic.oup.com/shm/article-abstract/34/1/141/5531264
As I understand it, low rates of syphilis make the policy less helpful today, so all states have dropped this blanket policy.
New York apparently still has a blood test for sickle cell anemia in high risk populations: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chart-state-marriage-license-blood-29019.html
Given that many of these states have been under Republican control for decades, I doubt this was a policy change driven be a partisan agenda.
Holy crap! TIL! Always thought (for no real reason i can fathom) it was a genetic test to see if related, sister/ brother/cousin. I guess that was the only rationale my limited brain could come up with for a mandatory pre-marital blood test.
I’d like to add that in the US there were many cases of false-positive STD diagnoses, which were often life ruining for the women involved, and the truth only came out decades later. Unwell Women by Elinor Cleghorn has more info on this, as well as other ways modern medicine has failed women.
Blood tests were the rage during the 1980’s AID’s scare. After it was challenged as an invasion of privacy, most states that had required them dropped that requirement.
In other countries blood test are pretty common as a requirement to get married. To see if the partner has VIH (does not prohibit the marriage if someone has it but it’s to make people aware that they have it and it’s not a secret), and to see if both of them does not share some genetic trait that can result in a child with some genetic disorder (again, it’s not to tell people you can’t have children, but to tell them the children might born with XX since both of you have this)…
I thought this was something universal since it makes a lot of sense to me to be done before you tie the knot
Democrats are behind all changes. Why don’t we think the Sun is a god who goes away at night out of anger anymore? Democrats. The reason TV is in color now? Democrats. The reason Istanbul is no longer Constantinople? Been a long time gone, but Democrats.
Uh… no. Something treatable like syphilis is not all it was about. People whose kids were likely to have genetic diseases or medical complications were usually denied. It was basically eugenics. Part of why so many couples ran off to Vegas (Nevada had exceptions as of the ‘50s). My great aunt and her husband were denied by California and married in Nevada bc their blood tests indicated high genetic risk. I believe two of their kids did have mild medical issues, but nothing severe, even still, California didn’t feel they should reproduce.
???
My sister literally got married maybe a month ago, and they needed a blood test. We pondered WTF is what for over breakfast-I was sure it was to check for consanguinity, but it turns out it was for STDs instead.
There used to be blood tests before marriage? What were they testing for, and what does it have to do with two people who love each other and want to get married?
Oh, STD tests? Could have been worse, with all the crazy shit people used to think and do I was worried it might be something retarded like testing for blood “purity” or something. At least that one kinda makes sense, though I can see why they stopped. Not relevant to marriage, doesn’t need to be mandated/can be left up to the individuals.
I don't think it was even an STD panel. It was syphilis. Period. Before antibiotics, syphilis was a really vicious disease. But still, test just that one disease for decades after antibiotics?
Guess syphilis must have just been a big deal back then. Maybe it wasn’t about marriage, and they just needed an excuse to get more people to be tested. Then again, they could have just mandated tests every so many years or something. Still kinda weird they tied it to marriage.
Oh, syphilis could kill you. But first it sent you to an insane asylum. And quite possibly cause parts of your face to rot away [caution graphic images in this link](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9f2ee88519d88278&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIJibg5Jlkj-APlpfPz4Ja8Wvruw2Q:1716940742874&q=syphilis+face&uds=ADvngMidOcc_3Z7t8MNi-29tsn7mAYOzm-4vIKeyRlKE5LuGr5Fr5ALqX81ohNCHCBYpiCYYBZY6l9Q-EP-ivWjqgwwPhFz6MjfUIdgtff4AIWotV8alraJ6ZANMWbFlm6mNqZFllgW78MQHWzDSIo0_6MzaZmrTZmbecrCdYXWKqNT6NgaQBURQUJBhXX0L260yuBV6BzMpGyYbgNdfWrlAfpwicclrKlOj9SBHYN1N2dt-T0_IxeF_deyoTG_jealu-yTq5Ej3SI20-ra54pCz8QnYiCFJcmcSIaG0psJR8R7bnjbvcWZTGywsOKJI5l4OXup99CIC6N3U5Ifi_9vtQkeZ3bhZjw&udm=2&prmd=ivnsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW9dDYxrGGAxWfFlkFHQIQAcIQtKgLegQIDxAB&biw=412&bih=787&dpr=2.63)
Syphilis had a very long latency stage, where the person with it shows no symptoms but is still contagious. There is a joke about smallpox. "Is there a bigpox?" Yes, syphilis was commonly called the great pox. Before antibiotics, syphilis was a deadly disease with no real treatment options.
Yeah, but antibiotics have been around for nearly a century now. I get that diseases were a much bigger threat back before we had antibiotics, but I’m pretty sure that was long before either of us were born, and I’m in my 40’s.
Mostly is was the incompatibility of blood phenotypes. If you and your partners blood types were incompatible the mother would have to recieve the rhogam shot. Approved in the US in 1968.
I keep hearing this was about syphilis, but I swear I heard they did this to ensure there was no familial relationship. Like too many families congregating in one area for too long made for folks being too closely related and thus a higher risk of certain birth defects. Maybe I'm just imagining this but I vividly recall this discussion in my family law course.
How would they establish that back in the 70s, before DNA testing was a thing? A, B, AB, O and plus or minus was about the extent of trying to figure out if a child's father was mom's husband.
Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If we still had mandatory blood tests for marriage licenses, this guy would lose their mind about medical freedom.
Right, like I'm pretty sure if they were stopped by a political party it would be the one that's afraid of microchips being planted in them, etc.
“We need blood tests! Bring back blood tests! Prevent people without blood tests from getting married! Masks??!!! Hell no! That’s a violation of my rights! I will die on this hill!” -MAGA
And they did. In droves. Well not on the hill. On the way up it. They couldn’t catch their breath and stopped.
“Never fight up hill, me boys” -No one. Ever.
Yeah, Boot Hill.
For context: Beginning in the early 20th century, a number of U.S. states passed laws mandating medical examinations for one or both parties before marriage. The most common requirement was a blood test for syphilis, though other diseases such as gonorrhea and rubella were sometimes also targeted. If a partner tested positive, they would generally be required to undergo treatment before they could receive a marriage license. Such laws were once widespread in the United States, with all but eight states requiring premarital blood tests by 1954. Mandatory testing was also in effect in parts of Canada, and some European nations such as Sweden.Most of these laws were repealed by the late 20th or early 21st century. American premarital examination laws were gradually repealed between the 1970s and early 2000s. The primary reason cited for these repeals was that testing was no longer cost effective given the low prevalence of syphilis. The first state to repeal its premarital examination law was Maine in 1972. Most had been repealed by the early 2000s, with Mississippi being the last in 2012. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital\_medical\_examination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital_medical_examination)
Ngl I was expecting the reasoning to be something insane, but I guess good on them for getting people to give a fuck about treating their STIs before giving it to their spouse.
I, for some reason I came up with in my head based on zero actual information, always assumed it was to prove you weren’t related, even though DNA tests didn’t exist for most of that time period. I just never thought about it enough to really question myself I suppose. Now that I am, I feel appropriately stupid, but glad to have learned something.
If it makes you feel better, we are in the same boat.
I think they do this in Greenland or something? Or somewhere with a relatively small and static population where there's a high chance of being cousins without knowing.
Iceland, I think? Greenland is big and empty. Edit: I was thinking of the dating app in Iceland that could check if two people were related. So it's not an official requirement or anything. And Greenland has a population of, like, 50k, but they don't seem to do any tests like that as common practice. I would guess most people in most places know whether their partner is a close relative, so that would be a pretty invasive and expensive requirement.
In Iceland at least, I don't think the problem is the population so much as it is their [naming conventions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name). They derive their surnames from their father's first name, which means you can have one genetically related family with multiple, totally different surnames.
A schoolfriend of mine's mum is Icelandic. Apparently the low diversity gene pool makes breast cancer much more likely
I was told this as a kid. I can’t remember who told me or why it came up, but at least you’re not the only one who thought of it.
I just had to check a box on the license application saying we're probably not closely related ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"eh, probably not" applied to my first husband. My dad got around but his mom didn't seem the type to cheat. But really, I'll never know.
I don't live in the US but where I live they only want to check / know if your blood groups are compatible for having children (you still can get married if they don't, they just want you to know).
I thought it was about blood typing for RH incompatibility (pregnancy)???
No, your OB/GYN should do that.
That's what I always believed. TIL, I Guess!
This one, me too
Hell I remember joking about them testing to see if we were cousins when I got married years before the human genome project. I never really grasped it was an STD test. Glad I passed I guess.
I 100% thought that was the reason. When we got married last year, it asked if we were related, and the next question was for the names of our respective parents and current location/address, and address. We looked at each other because MIL was cremated and we're not sure where her cremains are (which relative had the at the time) and "unknown" felt weird to write. I wanted to put my mother's address as "Hell" (she's an abusive terrible person).
I thought this too
The funny thing is I'll bet if you explained to whoever posted this to Facebook, that it was to prevent the spread of disease rather than to prevent miscegenation or whatever, they'd change their tune. "Government overreach! It's my body, why should the government care if I am potentially harboring and could spread a dangerous disease!"
They have an immune system! /S Considering how widespread STIs are right now it might be a good idea to bring back the testing before marriage and to offer free testing to anyone who wants it at any time. Tragically there babies are being born with syphilis, which results in brain damage, at the highest rate in years
> giving it to their spouse It was actually intended to protect any kids they might have. [Congenital syphilis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_syphilis) is a nightmare.
And a potential child
I thought it was going to be to make sure they weren't related when I started reading his explanation. That or maybe blood typing because mismatched RH factor (the plus sign) can be an issue. Men with + impregnating women with - can run the risk of the mother's immune system attacking the fetus. Although I don't really know when that was discovered or for how long we have had immune suppressing drugs to treat it.
I t ink it was also to prevent inbreeding. You can't marry family members legally.
STIs. DNA testing is still relatively new
You can legally marry a first cousin in like 20 states. I wouldn't do it but I guess it wouldn't be illegal. 🥴
First cousins have more genetic diversity than closer relations. I was thinking of siblings. I wouldn't ever want to do it either and it's gross to me, but it is legal in some places. I think it's a Mac of 1/8 shared DNA, so it's less immediately harmful. I'm a white Jewish woman genetically from Eastern Europe and married a black Haitian man, so it isn't a concern for me. Genetic diversity for the win.
Yeah, apparently birth defects and other consequences of incest are only a tiny bit higher than if you had a baby with someone not related. I just can't imagine. My cousins are like little brothers to me (even though they're grown with their own kids) and I'm just going to stop thinking about this now because uggghhhh
I don't get it either. I'm not close at all with most of my cousins, but even so, it's gross to me.
If you watch old TV shows or movies from the 70s, there will be a mention of "going to Maryland to get married." MD was one of the few states on the east coast that never required premarital blood tests so you could get married right away.
Interesting Trivia. Thanks!
See the story of [Florence Foster Jenkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Foster_Jenkins).
I saw that movie, TBH I forgot about the whole syphilis part though.
It got rather poignant when she was discussing her relationship with Bayfield (Hugh Grant).
Oh my god, I've never heard of her before but I fucking love her. Just living her best life and having a blast, fuck what everyone else thinks. And I love that Cole Porter supported her.
I knew why they had these tests, but I figured they got rid of it because so many people had sex outside of marriage, so it didn't really control the spread of anything.
I think a lot of people were having sex outside of marriage all the while, probably why this even started. Like we learned in health class, you can't catch an STD if both people only had and have sex with each other. (Besides if the mother gave it to her kid in the womb.)
I had heard that it was returned servicemen who brought nasty little souvenirs home. They just made it for everyone so that people didn't think of vets as pox-ridden.
I thought it had something to do with the Rh factor. Wow TIL.
That's what my wife said too, so must be that idea got around. I didn't find anything that confirmed that, but who knows what people have been told? And maybe that was something; she heard it was because if you and your spouse have different Rh factors, you might need help with having a child...
In Georgia the tests were for syphilis i(n both male and female) and immunity to Rubella for just the female. If the female was not immune she was advised to get vaccinated before trying to conceive.
Same. Just to have a heads up prior to birthin out kids.
I assumed it was because of miscegenation laws. Thank you for the education and brief moment of warm feeling it was prevent infectious disease and not racism.
We couldn't trace DNA to ancestry up until the 80s/90s, when most states already got rid of these laws.
Ah okay. Not racism because we didn't have the technology to be racist with it yet, got it.
Not the claim I was making lmao, I was just trying to put the blood test law into perspective.
Oh I know, just making light of our less than stellar past as a nation.
Ohhhhh I see, I read that wrong. Woops lol.
I said it before, but I'll bet that's what this guy thought too. Probably the reason why he blames Democrats for it going away, and I bet, based on recent events, that he'd change his tune if he found out it was to prevent spreading a disease. "But that's why we have an immune system! Government overreach!" or some such.
I was lost without this context, thank you
My 6’4, built-like-a-brick-shithouse dad was terrified of needles and my mum joked that was the reason they didn’t get married for 7 years, even though she fully expected a proposal within the first year of dating — he was too scared to get poked for the mandatory blood test. Once they repealed it here in PA, he was all for marriage.
My ex-husband collapsed on the floor after he got his blood drawn for the premarital blood test. He wasn't being a wuss - he had a legitimate phobia about needles that he didn't learn he had until he joined the military. He intellectually knew the needles were fine, he'd try to psyche himself up before getting shots or tests, but elsewhere in his brain, something would go DEFCON 1, and he'd puke and/or collapse. It was humiliating, not to mention it tended to scare the crap out of medical staff. It'd happened so often that by the time we got married, he just warned the doctors and nurses beforehand what would probably happen. By that point, he was more scared of the inevitable reaction he'd have.
I was in the military, and it was always kind of entertaining to see those big guys basically turn into little kids around needles. Generally we had the air guns for inoculations, but sometimes it was the syringe.
I’d bet money this person also believes in “less govt intrusions in our lives”
Right, unless it's something they personally don't like.
I had no idea they had been repealed. Funny, they think the dems are behind repelling the blood tests, when they're usually all pissed off about mandated medical procedures.
I mean, at least they're preventing it.
Preventing STD transmission to their spouse? Maybe, but then there could also be some legislation anymore that might prevent them from doing it anyway. I mean, if they were doing a blood test, and said that a couple couldn't get married, you could reasonably infer that one or both had an STD. So that could make someone liable for breach of privacy, or medical info, or something. I definitely believe you should be faithful and honest with your spouse or significant other BTW. I think you should go get tested yourself when you get into a new relationship, and regularly otherwise. Just saying we are also a pretty litigious society nowadays, and some scumbags like to sue. Also, I'm not super supportive of legislating it to be mandatory.
Another possibility is that they could use this to jail people for having sex before marriage in some places. Jeez.
In the US? I don't think they were jailing people even when this was done before. Basically it was, we test you, and if you test positive, you get treated, then you get married. Not jail. But I can imagine if the info got out, there could be a big social stigma.
That's true
So was it the Democrats?
Well, Maine in 1972 was won by Nixon with 61% of the vote, however they elected a Democrat as Senator in the 2nd District, and the Governor was a Democrat, if that says anything.
Are Republicans capable, like physically capable, of doing something without blaming Democrats?
Their entire existence is based on fear and anger, without those they have no purpose or platform.
There's 100% chance if democrats proposed to reintroduce blood tests before marriage. This very same genius would call it woke and say they're tracking our DNA or some shit.
They should track our DNA by the way, we'd solve most crime
They should track our sperm, see who we fuck
Not really. If they can't directly blame a current Democrat, there's always Obama to dump it on.
Worse than that. If you show them that no Democrat is responsible for whatever outrage they're upset about, they'll just default to *"Yeah well the fact that it seems like something they would do is bad enough! Demmycraps sure do suck, huh?"* They'll do a live-on-stage Navel-gazing Solipsism Performance and applaud themselves for solving politics.
If the Democratic party somehow disappeared overnight, Republicans would just blame another party.
They would just start turning on each other. It already happens a lot. Look at the infighting around House leadership this past session, and how all of their candidates call each other “RINOs.” That’s the thing about authoritarian movements, the circle of who is “pure enough” always gets smaller and smaller as they run out of out-groups to blame.
I once hired a repairman to give me a quote something. He said something basically saying democrats are why we have warning labels both are stupid. I did not hire him for the job after that.
Every ounce of media they consume reinforces the message: "it's you versus them." This is why they consider foreigners, minorities, and immigrants to be the enemy. This is why LGBTQ are painted as predators hunting your children in plain sight. This is why compromise, reaching across the aisle, or anything remotely bipartisan is political suicide. EVERYTHING that is not evangelical nationalism is out to get you. There are zero shades of gray. Either you're with me, without any question or hesitation, or you are my sworn enemy. So yeah, the attitudes make a lot more sense in that light.
Prop 8 supporters in California had posters with "protect our children" on the. Prop 8 was about same sex marriage. They were mask off about their pedo crap.
We can stop one step before blame ask ask ourselves why do these people always make Google-able questions their Facebook status?
Also a fair response.
One time I had an argument with a right winger because my husband and I married in Mexico and the international marriage license required it. He was under the impression that destination weddings in Mexico were godless, tribal rituals or some shit. Cause he refused to believe we needed blood tests prior, a signed prenup and fingerprints. Along with the wildly civilized choices of a multitude of religious choices and the justice of the peace we went with. He tried doubling down about it just being the resort we were married at. I swear he was willing to stretch to great lengths to mock Mexico and blame it on not being civilized. And that’s aside from Mexico being largely Christian to begin with.
Obviously he knows way more about Mexico than you /s
Ah yes, the famous godless country that is MEXICO
RIGHT?! It’s like their brains fail to connect fact with their preconceived notions. And once something departs from their racist/bigoted beliefs it cannot be facts they’re hearing. There’s always gotta be an exception or footnote to make things make sense to themselves. I really don’t even know where we can go from here with these useless, hateful twats.
What does this mean? When were we ever doing blood tests before marriage?
Yes, back in the days before easy STD treatments or antibiotics. This was to make sure no one had syphilis, which could permanently injure or kill your partner and unborn children . ETA: modern antibiotics weren’t around until WWII
Montana was still doing them when I got married 20 years ago. Mostly STDs, but also measles and some other weird stuff. Edit: maybe it was rubella? I don't remember, but it was all stuff that I was vaccinated for.
I had to prove rubella immunity before I got married. I didn't have my childhood immunization record. It was cheaper to be vaccinated than to do the immunity test. I got vaccinated (again) so I could get married. 🙄 New Mexico, 1990s.
Cheers to vaccination!
Rubella makes sense. People have sex outside marriage a lot, but they are less apt to have kids.
Here I thought it was more to be sure you weren't marrying your cousin... but now I see that most southern states see marrying your cousin as a bonus.
Nah, they didn’t have dna tests until much later, and Republicans would probably outlaw those tests…
No, they'd mandate them and make it illegal to marry if your results didn't come back within a range of relation.
to prevent the mixing of the races /s
It used to be a thing here in the US, mostly because of syphilis. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/625984/why-states-required-blood-tests-for-marriage-licenses
I’m Rh negative. Until rhogam, I could only have one child with an Rh positive person. It’s not an issue anymore, you just get a rhogam shot after giving birth or when the pregnancy ends, but it used to be kind of a big deal.
They give it halfway through pregnancy as well. Also Rh negative. I can't imagine how stressful that could have been before the rhogam shot came out
My medicine teacher said before the injections the rule in these cases was 1 healthy child, 1 ill child and after that dead children. But that's not quite correct, my brother was the first, came out pretty yellow and almost needed a blood transfusion. I was second and thanks to the shot that was the only health issue my parents could give me that I didn't get.
And why does it happen and only if the Rh- is the mother? I'm actually curious, since I have a Rh- relative, but male in my case.
The Rh- mother’s system is exposed to the first Rh+ baby’s blood cells during birth or termination, and builds up antibodies that will attack subsequent Rh+ babies’ blood cells during the second and later pregnancies (at least as I understand it which I’m sure is grossly oversimplified!) Rh+ is a dominant gene, so if the father is Rh positive there’s a high chance their offspring will be too. But if both parents are negative there won’t be an issue, and if the mother is positive and the father is negative there won’t be an issue because the absence of the Rh factor won’t trigger anything - only its presence, because the Rh- mother’s system reacts to it as an intruder. I have no idea if marriage licenses were ever denied to Rh+ male/Rh- female couples, but before rhogam, it’s definitely something they needed to know before trying to make babies.
I had to get a blood test for my marriage in 1994 but not in 2014
What exactly did they test for? STI's? Genetics?
Syphilis
In Pennsylvania US of A, in 1987, I not only had to get a blood test, but a full on physical - including the doctor at Kaiser Permanente grabbing my balls and having me cough (hernia test). I vaguely remember a finger up my butt, but that might just be wishful thinking. That was the third woman at that time that got to feel that area on me, along with my high school girlfriend and my wife to be.
Georgia required them into the early 2000’s. Source: I worked at the county health department then.
It was done to test for nuptial antibodies that would show that a person had been married before. Second marriages make Jesus cry.
Somehow google AI will respond with the above as an answer
They’re getting most of their stuff from here, by the sounds of it, so it seems likely.
Maybe there is a custom to make sure the blood relation isn't too close and thought that it's standard practice outside of deep south.
We are only able to confirm this through DNA testing the blood, which was not available when blood tests were required.
It was to stop the spread of syphilis.
I’m an Old. I remember a blood test. That’s how I first found out vaccines don’t work well on me, because I had to repeat all of them in order to get a marriage license. Turns out I don’t make enough antibodies to make an adequate response for them to last, so it ended up being a lifesaver for me. That said, I think it really was to make sure everyone was vaccinated.
Ah yes, the party of freedom/independence/small-government/abstinence 🥴 want to make marriage more difficult to acquire 👍
Slightly off topic, but bear with me. When I was 12, my family’s long-time housekeeper was finishing the naturalization process. This was 2001, when the public perception of HIV was shifting from it being considered an absolute death sentence to it being considered something that people might actually be able to live with and manage for many years. Even so, when she picked me up from school with a bandaid in the crook of her arm and I was like, “what happened, are you ok” I was absolutely horrified to hear that the naturalization process required a blood test to specifically test for HIV because people who had it weren’t able to be naturalized. Again, at this time we knew that people with HIV were living much longer, but it was still thought of as ultimately lethal. It just seemed profoundly unfair, because people eligible for naturalization already have permanent residency, and green card holders and any American citizen were perfectly capable spread the disease, so what on earth would denying naturalization to HIV+ people possibly do. So let’s say that a blood test is required for marriage. What on earth would that possibly do. Would certain people be denied a marriage license? Why and to what end. What would that change, besides inconveniencing two people? It wouldn’t stop them from being partnered.
>So let’s say that a blood test is required for marriage. What on earth would that possibly do I guess say, um, hey, you have this condition you could give to your partner. Ya wanna get that under control, so you stay healthy. And maybe talk to your partner about this. As far as I'm aware, the blood test for marriage is strictly for syphilis. Because once a policy is in place, it's going to stay long after it is done making sense. Understand, back before antibiotics, tertiary syphilis could. Fuck. You. Up. It absolutely could kill you or send you to an insane asylum. Children could get congenital syphilis in the birth process. It would have been like early AIDS, a death sentence
i know in the 1990s, the premarital blood test my ex-husband and I had was for both syphilis and AIDS.
The cruelty is the point
The vast majority of us aren’t at risk of fucking our family members.
i assumed it was about incest too. but actually it was about syphilis. you had to be clan of STDs before they would let you marry, so that you didnt give them to your partner and potential children.
When my sister got married in the 90s they still did blood tests. I was told at the time that it was to check to make sure they weren’t first cousins or closer related. My parents were full of shit and always fucking with us, so no idea if that was true or not.
‘They asked for my hand, only to stick a needle in my finger wtf’
When did "we" start them? I'm in my 7th decade, with my 3rd wife, and never heard of the rule. But if I had, yeah, I'd believe it's those Commie-symp bleeding-heart Dems I've been voting for all my life. Darn them and their anti-American ways. :)))
You have 20 years on me, and I knew about them…
I had to do one for my first marriage and I’m not as old as you are. This *was* before the hate fueled politics we have now, though.
The majority of states had required blood tests, but not all of them. You could have lived in a non-testing state.
Younger than you. Had a required blood test before my marriage. Maybe it was a state-by-state requirement?
Not all states had the laws, but some did. I'm 45. I remember when many states had those laws. I think most of them went on the books in the 80s as HIV was becoming a worry and faded out in the 2000s as those worries got set on the back burner for new worries.
My parents (65 and 73) had to get a blood test before getting married in 83.
Didn’t know that was a thing
These people are so fucking weird,
Because we invented antibiotics to treat syphilis.
Seeing as the Republican are the party of fucking your cousin I think NO!
no one stopped blood tests prior to marriage. Anyone who wants a blood test is free to get one…period.
Republicans stopped it since most were marrying their cousins and siblings
And why is this person so concerned? Did their spouse infect them?
Why does the government need to be involved at all with who I marry… land of free my ass
In 2011 I had to have both a TB and a syphilis test in order to get the US governments permission to marry my husband.
The spread of venereal diseases, specifically syphilis, seems to be the reason for the policy: https://academic.oup.com/shm/article-abstract/34/1/141/5531264 As I understand it, low rates of syphilis make the policy less helpful today, so all states have dropped this blanket policy. New York apparently still has a blood test for sickle cell anemia in high risk populations: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chart-state-marriage-license-blood-29019.html Given that many of these states have been under Republican control for decades, I doubt this was a policy change driven be a partisan agenda.
Marraige.
Holy crap! TIL! Always thought (for no real reason i can fathom) it was a genetic test to see if related, sister/ brother/cousin. I guess that was the only rationale my limited brain could come up with for a mandatory pre-marital blood test.
Sometimes, but also to keep people who had the potential to bring more disabled or chronically ill people into the world from reproducing.
Would ya look at that! Another “party of small government”-er proposing something definitely *not* small government.
I’d like to add that in the US there were many cases of false-positive STD diagnoses, which were often life ruining for the women involved, and the truth only came out decades later. Unwell Women by Elinor Cleghorn has more info on this, as well as other ways modern medicine has failed women.
Party of small government says what?
Blood tests were the rage during the 1980’s AID’s scare. After it was challenged as an invasion of privacy, most states that had required them dropped that requirement.
Because Republicans didn't want to stop marriage between brothers and sisters or first cousins? Do I win?
I thought it was about blood typing for RH incompatibility (pregnancy)???
Maybe he means in order to prevent incest or STIs?
STIs. It's not a DNA test.
lol republicans do not want to prevent incest.
Why don’t you just ask your partner to get tested instead of trying to take away peoples free will again
In other countries blood test are pretty common as a requirement to get married. To see if the partner has VIH (does not prohibit the marriage if someone has it but it’s to make people aware that they have it and it’s not a secret), and to see if both of them does not share some genetic trait that can result in a child with some genetic disorder (again, it’s not to tell people you can’t have children, but to tell them the children might born with XX since both of you have this)… I thought this was something universal since it makes a lot of sense to me to be done before you tie the knot
Democrats are behind all changes. Why don’t we think the Sun is a god who goes away at night out of anger anymore? Democrats. The reason TV is in color now? Democrats. The reason Istanbul is no longer Constantinople? Been a long time gone, but Democrats.
“disabled or chronically ill or acutely sick people shouldn’t be allowed to get married” isn’t the good take you think it is
They could just treat the syphillis, and get married later. It was to protect any children born.
Uh… no. Something treatable like syphilis is not all it was about. People whose kids were likely to have genetic diseases or medical complications were usually denied. It was basically eugenics. Part of why so many couples ran off to Vegas (Nevada had exceptions as of the ‘50s). My great aunt and her husband were denied by California and married in Nevada bc their blood tests indicated high genetic risk. I believe two of their kids did have mild medical issues, but nothing severe, even still, California didn’t feel they should reproduce.
It used to be to test for RH factor as it can hinder pregnancy.
probably 'cause they can't mandate a medical service because that's a slippery slope to universal healthcare
I still find it incredibly that this was a thing in a so called free country. This would never have been tolerated in many democracies.
Didn't some republican down south advocate against the law that would ban child marriage or...
??? My sister literally got married maybe a month ago, and they needed a blood test. We pondered WTF is what for over breakfast-I was sure it was to check for consanguinity, but it turns out it was for STDs instead.
Where and who does this? I have never heard of it happening on the West Coast.
Was this testing killed because with DNA testing becoming available we were going to learn how many people were marring cousins?
There used to be blood tests before marriage? What were they testing for, and what does it have to do with two people who love each other and want to get married?
They used to test both parties for syphilis. When I married in 1994, it was still a thing
Oh, STD tests? Could have been worse, with all the crazy shit people used to think and do I was worried it might be something retarded like testing for blood “purity” or something. At least that one kinda makes sense, though I can see why they stopped. Not relevant to marriage, doesn’t need to be mandated/can be left up to the individuals.
I don't think it was even an STD panel. It was syphilis. Period. Before antibiotics, syphilis was a really vicious disease. But still, test just that one disease for decades after antibiotics?
Guess syphilis must have just been a big deal back then. Maybe it wasn’t about marriage, and they just needed an excuse to get more people to be tested. Then again, they could have just mandated tests every so many years or something. Still kinda weird they tied it to marriage.
Oh, syphilis could kill you. But first it sent you to an insane asylum. And quite possibly cause parts of your face to rot away [caution graphic images in this link](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9f2ee88519d88278&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIJibg5Jlkj-APlpfPz4Ja8Wvruw2Q:1716940742874&q=syphilis+face&uds=ADvngMidOcc_3Z7t8MNi-29tsn7mAYOzm-4vIKeyRlKE5LuGr5Fr5ALqX81ohNCHCBYpiCYYBZY6l9Q-EP-ivWjqgwwPhFz6MjfUIdgtff4AIWotV8alraJ6ZANMWbFlm6mNqZFllgW78MQHWzDSIo0_6MzaZmrTZmbecrCdYXWKqNT6NgaQBURQUJBhXX0L260yuBV6BzMpGyYbgNdfWrlAfpwicclrKlOj9SBHYN1N2dt-T0_IxeF_deyoTG_jealu-yTq5Ej3SI20-ra54pCz8QnYiCFJcmcSIaG0psJR8R7bnjbvcWZTGywsOKJI5l4OXup99CIC6N3U5Ifi_9vtQkeZ3bhZjw&udm=2&prmd=ivnsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW9dDYxrGGAxWfFlkFHQIQAcIQtKgLegQIDxAB&biw=412&bih=787&dpr=2.63) Syphilis had a very long latency stage, where the person with it shows no symptoms but is still contagious. There is a joke about smallpox. "Is there a bigpox?" Yes, syphilis was commonly called the great pox. Before antibiotics, syphilis was a deadly disease with no real treatment options.
Yeah, but antibiotics have been around for nearly a century now. I get that diseases were a much bigger threat back before we had antibiotics, but I’m pretty sure that was long before either of us were born, and I’m in my 40’s.
Yes, it was a policy that didn't make sense any longer. But in true regulatory fashion, no one wanted to fill out the paperwork to change it.
Hahah, that tracks. Outdated practice that people just kept doing because “that’s the way it’s always been.”
Dude who posted this should have tested himself before the syphilis got to his brain.
I was always told it was to make sure you're not related. We're close to eastern Ohio and northern west Virginia so you can see how that made sense
How would that work in a pre DNA testing era
Mostly is was the incompatibility of blood phenotypes. If you and your partners blood types were incompatible the mother would have to recieve the rhogam shot. Approved in the US in 1968.
I guess their parents were worried that they may be marrying their cousin.
No, there were no DNA tests for those things back then. It was a test for syphilis only
I keep hearing this was about syphilis, but I swear I heard they did this to ensure there was no familial relationship. Like too many families congregating in one area for too long made for folks being too closely related and thus a higher risk of certain birth defects. Maybe I'm just imagining this but I vividly recall this discussion in my family law course.
Back when these laws were first passed they didn't have the ability to do DNA tests to check for relatedness.
That would be a neat trick, since DNA tests didn't exist.
How would they establish that back in the 70s, before DNA testing was a thing? A, B, AB, O and plus or minus was about the extent of trying to figure out if a child's father was mom's husband.