A Nebraska Law Bans People with STDs from Marrying. A Lawmaker Wants to Scrap It
The law has been around since at least 1944 and has not been amended for more than 40 years. Shutterstock
Connecting state and local government leaders
An obscure law in Nebraska prevents people with STDs from marrying—and makes it difficult for people to annul their marriages for similar reasons.
Under current law, Nebraska residents with sexually transmitted diseases are not permitted to marry. One lawmaker is seeking to change that—though not for the reasons you might expect.
The statute proclaims that “no person who is afflicted with a venereal disease shall marry in this state." State Sen. Matt Hansen’s bill strikes that language.
But he also would add a provision to allow a marriage to be annulled if “either party had an undisclosed sexually transmitted disease at the time of marriage.”
“We had a constituent call us who had wanted an annulment for that reason, but the confusing case law ultimately stopped them—so we want to strike the old language," said Hansen, a Democrat from Lincoln, who introduced legislation to amend the policy.
It’s unclear why the law was written in the first place, Hansen said. The measure’s been on the books in Nebraska since at least 1944 and has not been amended since the 1970s. It’s a relatively obscure piece of legislation, he added.
“I have no knowledge of this ever being enforced,” he said.
Every state has odd rules on the books, such as a Vermont statute that makes it illegal to prohibit clotheslines and a provision in the Tennessee Constitution that forbids people from holding office if they have previously participated in a duel. States routinely repeal their outdated laws—for example, West Virginia lawmakers in 2010 did away with a law that made it illegal to partake in “lewd and lascivious cohabitation and conduct before marriage”—but others persist, including a Billings, Montana ordinance that requires live performers to stay onstage for the entirety of their gig.
Hansen’s bill is not a legislative priority, but he’s optimistic it will pass—eventually.
“This is our short session, so I don’t know if it’ll have the time this year,” he said. “But I’m hopeful there’s no opposition.”
Kate Elizabeth Queram is a Staff Correspondent for Route Fifty and is based in Washington, D.C.
NEXT STORY: Preventing Discrimination Against Preventive HIV Medication