Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

You can marry your first cousin in CA. Not your gay partner.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Neecy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:33 PM
Original message
You can marry your first cousin in CA. Not your gay partner.
You can also marry your first cousin in:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona (First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois (First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children)
Maine (First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children, or if they get genetic counseling)
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota (only if aboriginal culture of the couple permits cousin marriages)
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Utah (First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children)
Vermont
Virginia

I find it interesting that some states allow for marriage to a first cousin only if they cannot bear children. The procreation lobby doesn't seem to be working to overturn *those* laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Understand your intent but can one marry her/his first cousin of the same sex? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. WTF? Isn't that almost incestuous?
This is so mind-boggling. Also, Keith Olbermann once pointed out that the language in the Texas constitution pretty much said that Texas can't recognise ANY marriage at all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. most people have first cousin marriages in their ancestry.
it didn't used to be thought of as it is today.

e.g. In louisa may alcott's "rose in bloom" there are a couple of first cousin marriages, if i remember right.

especially if you were gentry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
33. No. Let's not perpetuate this, okay?
Cousin marriages have happened all throughout history, and almost anywhere in the civilized world EXCEPT the US, they're considered perfectly normal and nothing to get excited about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handmade34 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. time to change rules
..no one should marry until all can marry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. You can only marry your cousin if the mating can produce genetically deficient offspring.
Has to be a heterosexual pairing.

Ironically, only the heterosexual pairing is genetically unsound, as it is the one which might produce offspring too likely to have some negative condition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chowder66 Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. eeeewwwwww
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Had a few "eeeewwww" moments myself...
after doing my family tree and discovering that my (late) second husband and I probably shared a common ancestor a few generations back.

Not quite the same, but enough to sort of give me the willies...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. So in some of those states, it's better
to marry your first cousin and run the risk of having fucked up kids than it is to NOT be able to produce kids at all in a gay marriage.


Sick bastards.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. actually, the risk is practically non-existent
unless it goes on for quite a few generations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. You're right.
It's a cultural taboo. It's only risky for people with specific genetic disorders in their families.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Actually, it's a bit more than for non-related couples.
If there's special risk for defects that run in the family:



Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family)





For defects that do not run in a family, the increased risk is smaller:



In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. Check the links section for more information on genetic counselors. The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age.





It's actually second cousins that have very little increased risk of birth defects:




Second cousins have little, if any increased chance of having children with birth defects, per the book "Clinical Genetics Handbook"





According to:

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts



Basically, any marriage can produce children with birth defects, but there can be an increased risk (however slight) with marriage between first cousins. It doesn't have to go on for many generations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. And the people who allow in vitro fertilization are even sicker bastards
by your logic, since that has a higher rate of birth defects. Elizabeth Edwards - sick bastard for having those kids, right?

(My view is that the people promoting ignorant bigotry are the true "sick bastards" - no matter who they are promoting it against.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Just in case you didn't understand...
I'm not saying that people who have children with birth defects are sick bastards.

What I AM saying is that not allowing people to marry, who can't even produce children, defects or not, is sick.

You know?

The old "we have to protect the fetus" deal, but after it's born, who gives a shit...

You think the people who want to prevent gay marriage because gays can't have children naturally give two shits about any children who suffer because their heterosexual parents COULD produce them but don't want them because they're too much trouble?

I used to work with developmentally disabled people in a residential setting. You know how many parents just don't want to deal with their own kids? Stick 'em in a "home"...great solution.

All the RW nuts really seem to care about is little embryo/fetus things that they can get all foamy at the mouth about because someone somewhere wants to "kill" them.

Well, they can't do that with gays, can they?

But they can with heterosexuals, and it doesn't matter to them if the babies are born with things that could either kill them in a short time or make their lives miserable. As long as they get to stomp around and be outraged.


They are sick bastards for allowing marriages that could have a slightly higher chance of producing kids with defects (between first cousins) but denying marriage completely to gays because they can't produce children at all.

that was my point. I hope I've explained it well enough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I understood what you were saying loud and clear on the first go round.
It was based on prejudices about cousin marriages COMBINED with justifiable anger at preventing gays from marrying.

The bigotry is embedded in it and here's why. There is a LARGER chance of birth defects from women using IVF to get pregnant, but nobody, yourself included, calls anyone "sick bastards" for preventing gay marriage while letting women take fertility drugs.

And nobody, yourself included, calls anyone a "sick bastard" for preventing gay marriages while allowing 45 year old women to get married, even though their risk of having kids with birth defects is larger than the risk from cousins.

The use of the phrase "sick bastard" is reserved for people who allow cousin marriages because it's not only about the medical risks of birth defects, and it's not really about the gay marriages. It's about stereotypes, prejudices and ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Glad to see that my state isn't on that list.....Ick.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. First cousin marriage is essential if we're to have fine, strong, intelligent all-American chidren
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kyril Enko Donating Member (204 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. (Cue "Deliverance" theme)
dududududududududu.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
11. Can we PLEASE stop with the bigoted approach to human rights?
look at these freaks who can legally marry, their kids must be demented freakazoids with birth defects, and if not, well, just ewwwwwwwww. If even THEY can get married, why can't gays?

This line of argument is dependent on promoting the idea that we should have some level of agreed upon prejudice about cousin marriages. Not only is this culturally offensive, given large portions of the world where it's the norm, it's also just ignorant and based on bad science. The US is in the minority - even among western developed nations - in restricting cousin marriages.

This line of argument is also offensive on a personal level. My dad's parents are first cousins. I assume this is true for a number of DU members.

Finally, we should all realize by now that when the US restricts marriages that other countries allow, including cousin marriages, including gay marriages, it's almost always based on bigotry, nothing else.

Please, find a way to promote rights for one group without degrading entire other groups in the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. +1
and my maternal grandparents were 2nd cousins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Withywindle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. THANK YOU.
It's not OK to push for rights for one group by exploiting prejudice against another, and on some level implying we ought to take another group's rights away.

Especially since the cultural prejudice against that group is just a cultural superstition WE have that most of the world--including countries we view as more "civilized" than us, like the highly-educated liberal states of Western Europe--doesn't share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. Nobody is "degrading" other groups
Edited on Sun Feb-21-10 11:19 PM by pipi_k
Well, I'm not, at any rate...

If people want to marry their first cousins, then fine by me.


I just found it a bit repulsive when I first found out that I could have been married to a distant cousin.

Much the same feeling I would have if a step brother...the child of my stepfather and some other woman...wanted to date me.

Or a brother in law, the brother of a husband or ex husband.

This is MY personal taboo and has nothing whatsoever to do with degrading a whole group of people. Nor has my aversion to being married to a cousin, first, second, or third, anything to do with that group.

People can do what they want. I reserve the right to feel rather icky about it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. It's absolutely beyond a personal taboo.
A personal taboo is your own private thoughts or personal restrictions on behavior.

Once you go on a big message board posting ewwwwwww in response to the topic, and reinforcing the notion that it's gonna result in fucked up kids, you've moved from a personal taboo to spreading prejudices to other people.

Sort of like personally not finding someone of a particular race attractive. Whatever, it's personal. But if you hear about someone else having an interracial relationship with someone of that ethnicity, if you jump online to post "ewwwwww, gross, that's icky" - you've crossed from personal preference to actively contributing to a wider cultural stigma.

Maybe you can't help what you personally feel, but what you can do is speak out against that bias next time you see someone else engaging in it. That's what activism is, in part. Like speaking out in defense of pro-choice, even if you wouldn't personally have an abortion, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cirque du So-What Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. Note that Kentucky & West Virginia don't allow 1st cousin marriages
yet it's legal in California, New York & practically all of New England.

For all the jokes about web-footed offspring & other stories of genetic anomalies, there's not a lot of supporting evidence of an elevated risk:

Thirty-one states outlaw marriage between first cousins, making the United States the only developed country in which the practice is regularly banned. Most were passed in the Civil War’s aftermath — not, say Spencer and Paul, to reduce the chance of defects caused by combinations of deleterious genes, but as part of a radical expansion of government authority over private lives.

"Unlike the situation in Britain and much of Europe, cousin marriage in the U.S. was associated not with the aristocracy and upper middle class but with much easier targets: immigrants and the rural poor," they write.

But their argument is far from consensus: in Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage,
Kansas State University anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer argues that the bans were driven by now-discredited 19th century research on birth defects among children born to first cousins.

Whatever their motivations, the laws are not supported by science. According to the
National Society of Genetic Counselors, birth defects are 2 to 3
percent more common in children born to first cousins than among the general population — a real risk, but not enough to justify the bans.


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/cousinmarriag... /

I suspect the ban due more to American repressive attitudes toward sexuality in general - a holdover from Victorian days that permeates our society and accounts as well for the collective freak-out toward the other aspect of the OP: same-sex marriage. Oh, and all you people who start whistling the theme to Deliverance or crack wise about southern states in general? Kiss my ass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. Some background on First Cousin Marrying
In pre-Christian Europe and most of the Non-Christian World today First Cousins not only were permitted to marry, were expected to marry each other. After the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the Catholic Church double the people on can NOT marry under Jewish and Roman Law. This expansion included First Cousins (i.e. for the first time in European History First cousins were NOT only not expected to marry but were FORBIDDEN to marry). The main reason for this was to break up the old Roman Aristocracy that controlled almost all of the lands of Europe even after the Empire had fallen and the Technical rulers were the Germanic tribes. This concentration of wealth in the form of land had been the chief problem within the Roman Republic and later Empire (In the Second century BC, the Gracchi tried to undo this concentration of land and were assassinated for it, furthermore the Roman Republic turned to a Mercenary Army, for the Militia Army that had Defeated Hannibal had supported the Gracchi and thus could no longer be trusted to keep existing property rights, which I should point out was illegal under Roman Law, but that law had been ignored since before Hannibal).

Thus even after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, Roman aristocracy kept ownership of their lands. The adoption of the concept that you could NOT marry your cousin meant that the land would have to be divided among a larger group of people at the death of any land owner. As the Early Middle Ages (I refused to call them the "Dark Ages" for it was a time of improvements in the life of the poor, while the elites lost, money, land and power and since most of our information is from the elites it was a "Dark Age" for them, even while the peasants were slowly improving and would continue till improve till the Renaissance).

Now, since the 1800s, various rationales have appeared to justify the ban on Marring first cousins for some other reason then to make sure the wealth in NOT concentrated in the hands of just a few interrelated families. All of these rationales have failed, mostly because we, as a society, have NOT generally married our cousins for over 1500 years and most of the bad affects of such closing marrying have been minimized OR since first marrying is NOT the norm even, where legal, no inherited problems appear.

Just a comment WHY First Cousins were forbidden to marry. If no such ban had existed, we would be still marrying our cousins today (As does most of the "Non-Christian" World). We have run across one of the good points of such marriages in Iraq and Afghanistan. In those two countries, like much of the Moslem world, marrying first cousins in the norm. This has a side affect of strengthening families, tribes and clans over any wider organization. Thus in Iran and Afghanistan it has been hard to recruit people to spy on members of their own town, for most towns are organized on tribal basis and to spy is to turn traitor to not only your support group, but your spouses support group (Being cousins, both support group are almost the same). Anything that attacks that extended family/Clan/Tribe is an enemy of one and all members of that extended family/Clan/Tribe. Thus when we ended the War in Iraq we had to bribe the leadership of those extended family/Clan/Tribe NOT rely on a spy in the neighborhood to report to us what was going on. We can use such spys in Latin America for First Cousins rarely marry there and thus the support group is wider then one's extended family/Clan/Tribe just because one has relatives (and your spouse has relatives) that are outside the extended family/Clan/Tribe. This is one of the side affects of the ban on Cousin marrying, but what you lose in support from close relatives, you gain by having an wider extended family (But then you must accept the fact the wider support group is NOT as dedicated to you as would a interbreed extended family/Clan/Tribe as found in Iraq and most of the Non-Christian World.

Please note, I use the term "Christian" and "Non-Christian" to reflect the fact that it was the Early Middle Ages Christian Church that imposed this rule. It exist from Russia to Latin American do to the extent of the area where the Christian Church is or had been the dominate religion since the Early Middle Ages. Christianity is NOT the dominate force in those areas today, but traditions in those areas reflect Christian beliefs of the Middle Ages. Now, every Western Country, except the US, has legalized cousin marrying, but as noted above this was done AFTER the breakup of the old Roman elites (Around 900 AD) AND after most people in those Western Countries no longer looked at their first cousins as their first choice in mates (i.e. the problem caused by Cousin marrying, has either been long solved by the ban so the ban in no needed for most people do NOT look as their first cousins as their first choice of mates).

Please note China bans Cousins marrying for the same reason the Early Middle Ages Catholic Church did, to break up the concentration of wealth among certain groups, in the case of China Peasants who controlled certain parts of rural China.

The Gracchi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

Some more on first Cousins and Marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeresyLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. US. is the only western country with cousin marriage restrictions.
No European country prohibits marriage between first cousins. It is also legal throughout Canada and Mexico to marry your cousin

Albert Einstein married his first cousin. And so did Charles Darwin, who had exceptional children.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the longest serving US president in history married his cousin (not a first cousin, however they shared the same last name).


http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Withywindle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
20. The answer is to BRING EQUALITY TO ALL, not take rights away from some people
decent article from CNN.com on the subject:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/


Did you know this?

Prohibitions on cousin marriage are unique to the United States. Most other countries permit first-cousin marriages without restriction, and the rate of cousin marriages in some countries is as high as 60 percent of all marriages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terra Alta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
21. I support marriage between ANY two consenting adults.
Yes, even siblings(as gross as that sounds). Why should there be restrictions on whom one should marry? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
22. Hmm. Just went down the list. My cousin-marrying options are limited:
Couldn't marry that guy unless I were gay. Couldn't marry that gal unless I really wanted a relation with a bigamist. Couldn't marry that guy without going to jail for improper relations with a corpse ...
Got to the last one on the list and decided the prospect of marrying her would make me thumb the yellow pages furiously looking for classes on how to become gay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
23. There was an MSNBC article published several years ago where they discovered that children born from
first cousins didn't cause nearly as many genetically deficient situations as they originally thought. It was only about 2 to 3 percent higher than with unrelated pairings.


Here's the article.

"Are 'kissing cousins' OK to marry?"
April 5, 2005
Associated Press

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7392714/

<snip>
Bennett led a 2002 study on risks of genetic problems in children born in such marriages. The study found that children born to couples who are first or second cousins have a lower risk for birth defects than commonly perceived.

On average, an unrelated couple has an approximately 3 percent to 4 percent risk of having a child with a birth defect, significant mental retardation or serious genetic disease.

Close cousins face an additional risk of 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent, according to the study, funded by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Yep, that's pretty close to what I found too...
the point being that while the risk isn't as great as we thought at one time, there's still a slightly elevated risk.

If the risk were exactly the same, or even lower, than non-cousin marriages, then it wouldn't even be an issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
24. At least we can all make fun of hillbillys. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
32. Who knew I could marry my cousin Jimmy? Kind of creepy as we look alike.
Edited on Sun Feb-21-10 11:44 PM by Jennicut
Yech.

Good point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC