When I was applying for a marriage license in 2002, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts required me and my betrothed to get a blood test to prove that we did not have syphilis.

It seemed like an antiquated practice—our doctor laughed as he signed the form—especially since at the time, that particular sexually transmitted disease (STD) was on the verge of being eliminated and the only reported outbreaks were among men who had sex with men. Those men, of course, could not marry yet in Massachusetts.

State lawmakers must have agreed, because in 2005 they followed the trend and removed the blood test requirement. Once common, now only Montana requires such syphilis testing.

One lawmaker in Oklahoma, however, wants to grow that list with a new rule requiring that couples prove they do not have syphilis or other communicable diseases before the state will issue them a marriage license. Specifically, couples will have to have a blood test and present a signed note from a physician saying either that they have tested negative or that the disease is not in a stage in which it can be transmitted to their marriage partner.

It is not clear what happens to those couples who do not meet these criteria, but if the proposed legislation passes as it is currently worded, it appears that the state could refuse to issue a marriage license after a failed syphilis test.

The bill was introduced by state Sen. Anthony Sykes (R-District 24) and seems to have some support among his Republican colleagues. Republican Sen. Kyle Loveless, for example, told News 9 that the bill was important but needed some changes to ensure privacy.

“We have to look at that as a society whether we want people who have communicable diseases, they need to know if they have it, and I think this is a mechanism to provide them to do that,” Loveless told News 9.

Loveless is not the only one to have concerns about the privacy of the results. As written, the bill states that the information about a couple’s STD tests would be filed with the county clerk, making it a matter of public record. Many legal experts believe this violates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), which was enacted to protect people’s medical records.

Others are questioning whether the bill serves any purpose. Encouraging STD testing is always important, but we do not live in an era in which couples are celibate until their wedding night. One analysis of trends found that 95 percent of 44-year-olds had premarital sex. Waiting until they apply for their marriage license—which could be as late as the day before they walk down the aisles, because states have also eliminated waiting periods—seems guaranteed to be too late.

The choice of tests is also curious. Syphilis, which once caused blindness and madness, is easily treatable.

Rates of the STD, however, are once again on the rise. Far fewer cases of syphilis are reported compared to many other STDs, like chlamydia, gonorrhea, or human papillomavirus (HPV).

Seventy-five percent of the 17,335 cases of primary and secondary syphilis reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2013 were among men who have sex with men, and many were the result of local outbreaks in urban centers such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Oklahoma passed a ban on gay marriage in 2004, though it was overturned by a federal judge in 2014. Still, it does not seem that the blood test rule is being proposed for or because of same-sex couples.

The proposed law is not actually limited to syphilis. The law states that blood tests should cover “syphilis and any other communicable or infectious disease.”

Most STDs—like gonorrhea, chlamydia, and HPV—meet this criteria but are likely not the intended target of the bill, because they cannot be diagnosed with a blood test. HIV can be discovered through a blood test, but if this was the intent of the bill, it seems odd that HIV would not be mentioned by name.

When premarital blood test laws were originally passed in the first half of the 20th century, the public health goals were not limited to STDs. The tests checked for syphilis as well as communicable diseases such as rubella. Blood tests also looked to see if marrying couples—who were likely to become parents—were carriers of certain genetic diseases like sickle cell disease or Tay-Sachs. Today, with the introduction of vaccines, antibiotics, and pre-pregnancy genetic testing, most states no longer believe blood tests to be necessary before marriage.

In fact, Oklahoma rescinded its law in 2004 in large part because after tracking 300,000 syphilis tests over five years, the state had only uncovered five cases of the disease.

Sykes still seems to think it is important to go back to the days of testing. He may be the only one, as the bill does not have any co-sponsors.

The bill has been referred to the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Sykes is the chairman.