A Healthy Marriage

When reading Marrying Absurd, it struck me as, well, absurd that when this piece was written, a pre-marital blood test was the norm.

Didion writes, "The State of Nevada, alone among these United States, demands neither a pre-marital blood test nor a waiting period before or after the issuance of a marriage license."

I did some research, and found out that the pre-marital blood test had been largely eliminated from marriage licenses in 1980, but the only state that still mandates them today is Montana.

Joseph Price, Kasey S. Buckles, and Melanie Guldi summarized the reasons for the pre-marital blood test here:
https://www3.nd.edu/~ndlaw/conferences/lawecon/Buckles-ChangingthePriceMarriage-EvidenceBloodTestRequirements.pdf

Historically, many states have required applicants for a marriage license to obtain a blood test. These tests were for venereal diseases (most commonly syphilis), for genetic disorders (such as sickle-cell anemia), or for rubella. The tests for syphilis were part of a broad public health campaign enacted in the late 1930s by U.S. Surgeon General Thomas Parran. Parran argued that premarital testing was necessary to inform the potential marriage partner of the risk of contracting a communicable disease, and to reduce the risk of birth defects associated with syphilis. According to Brandt (1985), "by the end of 1938, twenty-six states had enacted provisions prohibiting the marriage of infected individuals." Screenings for genetic disorders and for rubella were also implemented in the interest of minimizing the risk of genetic disease or birth defects in the couple's offspring.

To me, it seems that the rights of individuals to marry whom they wished was thus swept aside in the name of "hygiene" and public health. Furthermore, some states would deny your marriage license if either party had a disease. While I can recognize the medical benefit, realistically, your partner should already know about any diseases you may have long before you go through the marriage process.

The blood test was awesome for the medical industry, however, because it required millions of couples to pay for unnecessary medical procedures.

Buckles, et al., also discusses the true outcome of these required tests:

In the case of syphilis, however, it was soon recognized that premarital blood testing was not a cost-effective way to screen for the disease. Despite reports that 10% of Americans were infected, only 1.34% of applicants in New York City's first year of testing were found to have the disease. Brandt (1985) notes that a premarital exam was "not the optimal locus for screening," since couples seeking to marry were not likely to be in the most at-risk groups, and individuals who knew they were infected could wait until the infection cleared to apply for a license. ... Nationwide, couples spent over $80 million to reveal 456 cases.