May 29, 2008
Mandatory HIV Tests Before Marriage?
Several Washington, DC, council members are opposing a motion to require HIV tests for people applying for marriage licenses, the Washington Post reports (washingtonpost.com, 5/29). The council members also recommend that the currently required pre-license syphilis tests be dropped.
In December, a group of council members proposed the Safe Marriage Amendment Act, which would add the HIV testing. However, according to the Post, most American states have eliminated such rules; only two states check the blood of marriage-license applicants: Montana, which tests for rubella, and Mississippi, which tests for syphilis.
Search: mandatory testing, Safe Marriage Amendment Act
Scroll down to comment on this story.
comments 15 - 22 (of 22 total)
KP, Philadelphia, 2008-06-04 12:24:50
I have been HIV+ for over a decade. I understand the fears of discrimination and stigmatization because I have felt them, and been a victim of them. However, I believe that the need to stop the spread of HIV and STIs is great enough to warrant mandatory testing for marriage licenses. Knowledge empowers; people committing themselves to life-long partnership are obliged to share medical information that could affect them directly. People infected need to know their status so they can get treatment
Mark, , 2008-06-04 09:04:45
Knuckle draggers of the world unite! Did the Mayflower just land at Plymouth Rock? Has the New England minister found his matches to burn the witches? The bans for marriage used in medieval society, should not be used by ignorant and aids-o-phobic viglantes to discriminate. Well, if the bans of marriage based on communicable diseases that refer to the diseases of prostitutes be used for marriage, remember that those same bans applied to homosexuals. Ban the bans!
Ronald, Los Angeles, 2008-06-03 23:08:16
And then what? Will the government create laws telling the people if found to be infected, that they then cannot be married? There was little national concern in the 80's when the majority of society and the religious, telling the mostly gay men then infected, that they/we got what we deserved? Making up for lost time in this manner serves none. AIDS in our world now is due to ignoring HIV/AIDS back then. Our government should be doing more for the infected in our communities of color in 2008.
Annette, Lakewood, 2008-06-03 17:37:27
While I can see the reasoning behind this - it makes my skin crawl thinking that, once again, civil rights are being infringed on those without their consent and without counseling. Unless there is a system in place that provides counseling and health care and anonymity - this should be carefully thought out. What happens after someone tests positive? Throw them to the wolves and let them go figure it out on their own?
dbeck, Houston, 2008-06-03 12:29:01
You'd think people would want to do this - what better way to KNOW your partners status? I think all states should consider this.
EFaye, Philadelphia, 2008-06-03 11:45:15
It should be mandatory. Perhaps there could be an anonymous test and only the hubby/wife to be would know the results but the ignorance would not exist. They make you test to go to the military and die but not to marry and make a new LIFE hmmm
Tracey, Los Angeles, 2008-06-03 11:43:09
Linda, while I understand and hear your heart is in the right place - this is simply wrong. Many are not being tested NOT because they do not want to be helped but due to lists, both promoted and unpromoted, that are being kept of names of people who are infected. NO ONE wants to end up on the short end of the stick when it comes to health care or any other desperately needed services. Our government is pervasive enough without ostracizing people due to this unfortunate disease.
Linda, Baltimore maryland, 2008-06-03 10:21:05
comments 15 - 22 (of 22 total)
I feel a full STD screen should be run on people getting married or having a baby, seems people dont want to get tested on their own so we (the united states of america) have to take a stand and do something about this. how can we control the spread of diseases if people wont get tested? how many people have to get infected with something before we admit there is a problem? how many have to die from a disease no one knew they had? how many more people have to be infected before we do something?
[Go to top]