Marriage between first cousins

Here's a question. Is this law ever enforced in the US?

There are all sorts of silly state laws still on the books. Check out the wikipedia entry for sodomy laws

Would cousins actually be prevented from marrying in the US? Would higher courts uphold the prohibition?
 
Hell, if you and LouAnn wanna go out to the woodshed and breed a whole clan of runts to clog up the express lane at Wal-Mart with a fully laden shopping cart, go right ahead. Natural selection will probably sort out situations like this, as they are highly likely to be killed in a meth lab explosion.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
I have heard some discussion over this. Very little, but some. Mostly in sociology courses where the fact that it's illegal in 19 states was pointed out. I remember there being a very minor debate about "kissing cousins" some time ago- it even merited a few articles in The New York Times. I even discussed it with a friend who was strongly against cousin marriage once or twice, the only time that it even came up in my life before this thread.

Mostly, though, it's no issue. You're right.
Click to expand...

Also the mixed status of such marriages means that you can get married, it just might be in a different state but most states should recognise marriages of cousins even if they do not permit such marriages.
 
Luciana said:
No? Do some quick googling and you'll find many groups petiotioning for that. New scientific evidence challenges the myth of the reasons behind the prohibition of cousing marriages. Your ignorance on the subject does not mean it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I wrote that I've never heard of anyone protesting this, not that there wasn't a single person in a country of 300 million that ever protested it. I'm sure there are many people who protest insignificant laws all the time. A handfull of people who don't like a law does not make it unpopular or unwanted.
 
Lonewulf said:
So we can't care about issues in other countries.

Alright. I'll assume that all U.S. posters will be avoiding any discussion on, say, Iraq, Iran, Korea, Asia, Europe, South America, Canada, or anything else that doesn't have to do with their 50 states.
Click to expand...

She can care about anything she wants and post about anything she wants. I asked her why she cared.

I don't care who can marry whom in other countries. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time thinking about it, which is why I asked. She seems awfully indignant about this, which seems odd to me.

You should read posts carefully before responding.
 
Last edited:
Vic Vega said:
She can care about anything she wants and post about anything she wants. I asked her why she cared.

I don't care who can marry whom in other countries. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time thinking about it, which is why I asked. She seems awfully indignant about this, which seems odd to me.

You should read posts carefully before responding.
Click to expand...

Maybe she wants to immigrate? And would gain a spouse's advantage if she could marry an American citizen, but the only American she knows is a first cousin?
 
Vic Vega said:
I don't care who can marry whom in other countries. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time thinking about it, which is why I asked. She seems awfully indignant about this, which seems odd to me.
Click to expand...

I care about human rights in a number of countries and I imagine you do too.

Granted, female circumcision and starvation rank just a little higher up the scale than cousin marriage, it isn't unreasonable to be interested in the laws of a foreign country.
 
casebro said:
Maybe she wants to immigrate? And would gain a spouse's advantage if she could marry an American citizen, but the only American she knows is a first cousin?
Click to expand...

Where did that come from???

Er, no.

Cavemonster said:
I care about human rights in a number of countries and I imagine you do too.

Granted, female circumcision and starvation rank just a little higher up the scale than cousin marriage, it isn't unreasonable to be interested in the laws of a foreign country.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And curiosity, which is also a very powerful force.
 
Vic Vega said:
I don't care who can marry whom in other countries. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time thinking about it, which is why I asked.
Click to expand...

You mean not everyone is just like you? Gasp! :jaw-dropp

You should read posts carefully before responding.
Click to expand...

I fail to see what I missed besides, "OMG she cares about something I wouldn't care about!!!111"
 
Mick Houlahan said:
Waitaminnit - lemme review my post real quick.....
Nope, I can't find the part where I advocate banning anything. Nice shared recessive gene reference though.

I really just wanted to say "flipper baby" and "hot cousin." Now if you'll excuse me I have some old family pictures to flip through.:D
Click to expand...

You realize that your post is in a thread about the legalities of marriage? It is rather like saying that you don't think gays should marry in a gay marriage thread, in that instance it would be taken that you are against it being legal for gays to marry.

Sure I can say I am against gay marriage in the sense that I do not want to marry a man, but have nothing against it being legal for others. The important part there is the added part at the end where I make a position on the legalities being discussed clear.
 
Even the Amish do not marry their cousins, however they have an extremely small biological pool. Consequently, they are frequently studied for the passing of birth defects and genetic mutations.

On the other hand, the Mormons in strict isolated FLDS communities have largely descended from a small group of people in the 1800's. If you do some googling, you will find that first cousin marriages repeated over several generations result in a higher percentage of cogenital birth defects. This has also been a problem for the European royal families & some Muslim families in the Middle East.

There is even the case of the Blue Fugates in Kentucky, in which a genetic mutation resulted in a blood disorder and blue skin (you can google for more info). Conversely, the defects work positively. There was recently a news article on the Amish developing a genetic resistance to heart disease.

So, no, one set of cousins deciding to marry will not have much of an effect on the family tree. However, if this is repeated for several generations, there could be some serious issues. Can we really write laws stating that first cousin marriages are legal in generation 1 & 2, then illegal generations 3 or 4? It seems to me that a healthy population requires a generally diverse gene pool, so I'm not terribly bothered that first cousin marriages are sometimes illegal.
 
I'm still not seeing how marriage = children.

Perhaps we should prevent close relatives from having children instead of preventing them from getting married.
 
Question: Are those laws against cousin marriage ever enforced? If so, how? What sort of paperwork do you fill out when applying for a marriage license? What questions does the country clerk ask you? How does he check up on you?

I ask because where I come from (Wyoming), marriage between Indians and whites used to be illegal, but nobody tried to make it stick -- nobody would have dared.
 
sackett said:
Question: Are those laws against cousin marriage ever enforced? If so, how? What sort of paperwork do you fill out when applying for a marriage license? What questions does the country clerk ask you? How does he check up on you?

I ask because where I come from (Wyoming), marriage between Indians and whites used to be illegal, but nobody tried to make it stick -- nobody would have dared.
Click to expand...

It's likely that the anti-cousin-marriage laws come from this same mindset (prohibit first, think about it later) one that is prejudiced and meddles unjustifiably in people's lives. But in some cases rationality prevails and people are even embarrassed to implement those, which might be the case here.
 
Luciana said:
It's likely that the anti-cousin-marriage laws come from this same mindset (prohibit first, think about it later) one that is prejudiced and meddles unjustifiably in people's lives. But in some cases rationality prevails and people are even embarrassed to implement those, which might be the case here.
Click to expand...
I've been reading this thread, trying to figure out why you are so passionate about this particular subject, and for the life of me, I can't seem to come up with anything that would justify the amount of venom I'm seeing in your posts (other than, perhaps, you are married to your own first cousin or want to be married to them, but you already denied a similar insinuation so I'm not really wanting to go with that one).

Not to mention how you keep ignoring the posts made about the biological risks associated with such incestuous relationships (those risks, for the record, are greater amongst a large population than they are amongst a small population).

Yes, here in the US having a relationship with one's own first cousin is considered incest. The social taboo is the other reason some states have banned the marriage of first cousins.

Maybe where you live it's not considered incest. Fine. But incest is one of those things that is defined by the society and culture in which one lives. The society and culture (what little there is) in the those states of the US have decided that sexual relationships with one's first cousin are incestuous.

The US is not the only government to have this view. Both the Orthodox Church and the Roman catholic church ban marriage between up to fourth cousins (thats much more restrictive than the US, by the way). The Netherlands also restricts marriage between cousins. China does as well, although only if cousins through the father's brothers. So why exactly are you picking on the US about it?
 
Luciana -- Thanks for the interesting thread. As posited by an earlier poster, I believe that the legal prohibition reflects a social taboo; which, in turn, was stirred in part by the "hillbilly" phenomenon of cousins' offspring marrying cousins' offspring that are themselves cousins. And, er, yeah, some seriously scary things resulted. The other piece that may have been--note that I say "may have been", not "was"--involved was trying to keep all the property from being tied up in one family group.

It's hard to see why the concerns of a low-knowledge, limited transportation, limited communication 19th century worldview would apply now. No longer do we have extended families sharing one big family farmhold, where cousins grow up as emotional siblings--which, I think, is the "best" argument for banning such a union, it's emotionally incest exactly as step-siblings are, despite lack of consanguity--and if we do, it is an issue of choice, not physical boundaries to information or travel.

So, I guess if Washington prohibits first cousins from marrying, I'd support repealing that law...but it's far down my list of priorities. There are many more egregious injustices, that affect many more people, on my list.

For instance, I just read that a WA state legislator wants to have the State collect DNA samples (and store the information in a database) for anyone arrested for a felony. Not convicted, nor even charged: simply arrested for a felony! This is an enormous violation of the accused's right to privacy, and implies a presumption of guilt that is in direct conflict with the fundamentals of our justice system.

That's just an example, no derailing intent (I'll take up that issue as its own thread later this week). So, while I do care, I don't care enough to mount a campaign; in fact, I'm not sure I care enough to try to research whether or not Washington State has the ban against such marriages.

We all pick our battles. This is not, at this time, something that engages my outrage reflex enough. Perhaps some grasp of how common this issue is, and how much it is enforced, would change that.

Another, related, idea is that there should be a "sunset" committee that reviews laws to see if they need to be repealed. Of course, members of the public can lobby to have specific laws looked at, so this kind of thing would fall into the "likely to be reviewed" category.

Hope I haven't completely puzzled you, Miss Kitt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom