Tennessee legislature passes bill banning marriages between first cousins

[BlueSwan]

What, no one here, in this thread, is shocked and/or appalled at this government tyranny? No one is calling this unconstitutional? What happened to It's unconstitutional for a state government to interfere with the fundamental right of adults to marry one another! We're talking about a human right, and states cannot try to regulate it!
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=431639.msg7966311#msg7966311
See how many users in this forum are libertarian-minded about marriage. Where are they now?

Cousin marriage undermines the underpinnings of our WEIRD society in a way that marriages that merely do not comport with traditional Judeo-Christian marriage rites do not.

To a large extent, the success of the West in general and of the United States in particular depends on people seeing themselves as members of nuclear families existing as citizens in community and society. If you introduce extended family or clan/tribe affinities into the equation, you get Pakistan.

Someone’s been reading Jonathan Haidt.

[HisGrace]

Not sure why this needs to be banned. Just ban parent-child and siblings and call it a day.

[politicallefty]

I

What, no one here, in this thread, is shocked and/or appalled at this government tyranny? No one is calling this unconstitutional? What happened to It's unconstitutional for a state government to interfere with the fundamental right of adults to marry one another! We're talking about a human right, and states cannot try to regulate it!
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=431639.msg7966311#msg7966311
See how many users in this forum are libertarian-minded about marriage. Where are they now?

I'm here, but I supported same-sex marriage on both counts. I would strike the law down in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The law is too broad. A more narrowly-tailored law could easily conform to the Consitution.

[LabourJersey]

What percentage of marriages these days are even between first cousins?

Back in the day, when families were larger and most people lived their whole lives within 30 miles of their birthplace, this was a legitimate issue, but I don't see this being the case anymore.

[ꙮ]

I don’t see the problem here. Banning first cousin marriage is a minimal restriction of freedoms (you are free to marry the other 99.99999% of the population), and it does have an actual rational purpose. Incest, including repeated cousin marriage, leads to a heightened rate of genetic disorders and disability.

Gay marriage on the other hand restricts you from half the population, and given the often-binary nature of human sexual attraction, keeps homosexuals from being able to marry at all. In addition, homosexual marriages definitionally cannot result in offspring, so no other party could possibly be injured by it.

[dead0man]

I don’t see the problem here. Banning first cousin marriage is a minimal restriction of freedoms (you are free to marry the other 99.99999% of the population), and it does have an actual rational purpose. Incest, including repeated cousin marriage, leads to a heightened rate of genetic disorders and disability.

so we should just ban the children of cousin marriage from getting married

[Never Made it to Graceland]

I don’t see the problem here. Banning first cousin marriage is a minimal restriction of freedoms (you are free to marry the other 99.99999% of the population), and it does have an actual rational purpose. Incest, including repeated cousin marriage, leads to a heightened rate of genetic disorders and disability.

so we should just ban the children of cousin marriage from getting married

What?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The rational purpose gets pretty eugenic pretty fast, even though it's, for understandable "ick" reasons, not really "done" to bring this up in conversations about incest.

[politicallefty]

I don’t see the problem here. Banning first cousin marriage is a minimal restriction of freedoms (you are free to marry the other 99.99999% of the population), and it does have an actual rational purpose. Incest, including repeated cousin marriage, leads to a heightened rate of genetic disorders and disability.

Gay marriage on the other hand restricts you from half the population, and given the often-binary nature of human sexual attraction, keeps homosexuals from being able to marry at all. In addition, homosexual marriages definitionally cannot result in offspring, so no other party could possibly be injured by it.

That's also why the law is overly broad. I recall reading that many cousin marriages in the modern era are more about taxes and other benefits that aren't so easily obtained outside of marriage. The rational reasons for the restriction do not apply to same-sex marriages or when one of the spouses is no longer fertile. I do agree that the state has a strong interest in preventing incest, but the law goes much further than it needs to based on the intentions.

[dead0man]

I don’t see the problem here. Banning first cousin marriage is a minimal restriction of freedoms (you are free to marry the other 99.99999% of the population), and it does have an actual rational purpose. Incest, including repeated cousin marriage, leads to a heightened rate of genetic disorders and disability.

so we should just ban the children of cousin marriage from getting married

What?

1.NYDem said "repeated cousin marriage, leads to a heightened rate of genetic disorders and disability"
2.I believe that is scientifically accurate (feel free to correct if we're both wrong)
3.I believe things shouldn't be banned without a really good reason
4.therefor we should only ban what actually could be a problem

<I should have added "to their cousins" at the end>

[Never Made it to Graceland]

I don’t see the problem here. Banning first cousin marriage is a minimal restriction of freedoms (you are free to marry the other 99.99999% of the population), and it does have an actual rational purpose. Incest, including repeated cousin marriage, leads to a heightened rate of genetic disorders and disability.

so we should just ban the children of cousin marriage from getting married

What?

1.NYDem said "repeated cousin marriage, leads to a heightened rate of genetic disorders and disability"
2.I believe that is scientifically accurate (feel free to correct if we're both wrong)
3.I believe things shouldn't be banned without a really good reason
4.therefor we should only ban what actually could be a problem

<I should have added "to their cousins" at the end>

Oh, I see what you mean. Then yes. I thought you meant "we should ban products of cousin marriage from marrying anyone" which would be rather draconian.

[ꙮ]

The rational purpose gets pretty eugenic pretty fast, even though it's, for understandable "ick" reasons, not really "done" to bring this up in conversations about incest.

I'm not sympathetic to eugenic arguments generally, but close-family incest is so strongly correlated with immediate abnormalities that I think it should be banned. There's a reason that taboos on sibling-sibling and parent-child incest are culture universals.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The rational purpose gets pretty eugenic pretty fast, even though it's, for understandable "ick" reasons, not really "done" to bring this up in conversations about incest.

I'm not sympathetic to eugenic arguments generally, but close-family incest is so strongly correlated with immediate abnormalities that I think it should be banned. There's a reason that taboos on sibling-sibling and parent-child incest are culture universals.

Equating first cousin marriage with sibling sibling marriage is ludicrous.

[ꙮ]

The rational purpose gets pretty eugenic pretty fast, even though it's, for understandable "ick" reasons, not really "done" to bring this up in conversations about incest.

I'm not sympathetic to eugenic arguments generally, but close-family incest is so strongly correlated with immediate abnormalities that I think it should be banned. There's a reason that taboos on sibling-sibling and parent-child incest are culture universals.

Equating first cousin marriage with sibling sibling marriage is ludicrous.

I'm not equating them. I'm was saying why I think prohibitions on incest aren't really "eugenics", even if it would meet a strict definition. I used the universality of some incest taboos as an example of that. These taboos predate any real knowledge of heredity, genetics, or eugenics theory.

Obviously the universal agreement against sibling marriages doesn't also exist with first cousin marriages, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. You have to draw a line somewhere though. There's a point beyond which two people are so distantly related that risk of issues disappears into the background. Some people say it's none of the state's business if siblings marry. Some people draw the line between siblings and first cousins. Others draw it between first and second, and some cultures disapprove of even more distant marriages. I'm in the third category.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

I genuinely don't see how in the 21st century marrying your first cousin even becomes a possibility at all, or why anyone would feel the need to defend it. Family reunions should not be singles mixers. If you're talking about 100 years ago in forested glens of the Ozarks where 3 of the 5 eligible bachelorettes in a 100 mile radius are related to you, that's different, but I don't think protecting this type of marriage today serves any purpose.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Another victory for "sometimes things are just gross and should be done away with"!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The rational purpose gets pretty eugenic pretty fast, even though it's, for understandable "ick" reasons, not really "done" to bring this up in conversations about incest.

I'm not sympathetic to eugenic arguments generally, but close-family incest is so strongly correlated with immediate abnormalities that I think it should be banned. There's a reason that taboos on sibling-sibling and parent-child incest are culture universals.

Equating first cousin marriage with sibling sibling marriage is ludicrous.

I'm not equating them. I'm was saying why I think prohibitions on incest aren't really "eugenics", even if it would meet a strict definition. I used the universality of some incest taboos as an example of that. These taboos predate any real knowledge of heredity, genetics, or eugenics theory.

Obviously the universal agreement against sibling marriages doesn't also exist with first cousin marriages, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. You have to draw a line somewhere though. There's a point beyond which two people are so distantly related that risk of issues disappears into the background. Some people say it's none of the state's business if siblings marry. Some people draw the line between siblings and first cousins. Others draw it between first and second, and some cultures disapprove of even more distant marriages. I'm in the third category.

Point taken, but I would say you overestimate how universal these things being seen as taboo really is.
I would favor permissiveness, or err on the side of it; Sibling sibling should not be allowed but first cousin absolutely should. It's not like its doomsday if a first cousin marriage happens, and the number of families doing only first cousin marriages are very unlikely to be high enough to justify such a social regulation.
And even if you think it's gross (I don't), there are gross things we don't outlaw. The burden of proof lies, generally, on those proposing such regulations, not those standing opposed to them.

[HisGrace]

I genuinely don't see how in the 21st century marrying your first cousin even becomes a possibility at all, or why anyone would feel the need to defend it. Family reunions should not be singles mixers. If you're talking about 100 years ago in forested glens of the Ozarks where 3 of the 5 eligible bachelorettes in a 100 mile radius are related to you, that's different, but I don't think protecting this type of marriage today serves any purpose.

But why though? "I don't like it" isn't a legitimate reason unless you want to run with that for the significant percentage of people who don't like gay marriages. Cousin marriages don't have the significant risk of birth defects in children that you get from people in the same immediate family and the real reason parents and siblings are banned is that 99% of the time it stems from some kind of sexual abuse. I personally have cousins I was really close to as a kid and are almost like siblings so I personally find it gross but if two cousins happen to fall in love I don't really think there's a reason to legally stop them from being together.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

I genuinely don't see how in the 21st century marrying your first cousin even becomes a possibility at all, or why anyone would feel the need to defend it. Family reunions should not be singles mixers. If you're talking about 100 years ago in forested glens of the Ozarks where 3 of the 5 eligible bachelorettes in a 100 mile radius are related to you, that's different, but I don't think protecting this type of marriage today serves any purpose.

But why though? "I don't like it" isn't a legitimate reason unless you want to run with that for the significant percentage of people who don't like gay marriages. Cousin marriages don't have the significant risk of birth defects in children that you get from people in the same immediate family and the real reason parents and siblings are banned is that 99% of the time it stems from some kind of sexual abuse. I personally have cousins I was really close to as a kid and are almost like siblings so I personally find it gross but if two cousins happen to fall in love I don't really think there's a reason to legally stop them from being together.

I'm in a similar situation as you. I wasn't blessed with a happy immediate family/sibling situation, so my first cousins have filled that role. I find the idea personally repulsive, but that's not why I support a ban on the practice of first cousin marriage. I simply feel the risks (though smaller) outweigh any benefits/need, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Gay marriage's ban was pretty facially discriminatory on the basis of gender, thus it does not (imo) pass the judicial "strict scrutiny" test - discrimination based on a suspect classification must clear a high standard of government interest outweighing the discriminatory effects. Cousin marriage would not be subject to the same standard. People are not being prohibited from getting married based on their gender, race, religion, disability, or national origin: they are being prohibited from marrying specific people to whom starting a family poses a heightened risk. I believe this justifies a state banning the practice.

[HisGrace]

I genuinely don't see how in the 21st century marrying your first cousin even becomes a possibility at all, or why anyone would feel the need to defend it. Family reunions should not be singles mixers. If you're talking about 100 years ago in forested glens of the Ozarks where 3 of the 5 eligible bachelorettes in a 100 mile radius are related to you, that's different, but I don't think protecting this type of marriage today serves any purpose.

But why though? "I don't like it" isn't a legitimate reason unless you want to run with that for the significant percentage of people who don't like gay marriages. Cousin marriages don't have the significant risk of birth defects in children that you get from people in the same immediate family and the real reason parents and siblings are banned is that 99% of the time it stems from some kind of sexual abuse. I personally have cousins I was really close to as a kid and are almost like siblings so I personally find it gross but if two cousins happen to fall in love I don't really think there's a reason to legally stop them from being together.

I'm in a similar situation as you. I wasn't blessed with a happy immediate family/sibling situation, so my first cousins have filled that role. I find the idea personally repulsive, but that's not why I support a ban on the practice of first cousin marriage. I simply feel the risks (though smaller) outweigh any benefits/need, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Gay marriage's ban was pretty facially discriminatory on the basis of gender, thus it does not (imo) pass the judicial "strict scrutiny" test - discrimination based on a suspect classification must clear a high standard of government interest outweighing the discriminatory effects. Cousin marriage would not be subject to the same standard. People are not being prohibited from getting married based on their gender, race, religion, disability, or national origin: they are being prohibited from marrying specific people to whom starting a family poses a heightened risk. I believe this justifies a state banning the practice.

Children of cousins don't have that high of a risk of birth defects and certain studies have found no difference at all from the average. Other than that I'm not sure what the issue is, cousins generally don't grow up under the same roof so as I noted before it's not a preventing sexual abuse thing. If cousins end up together it's probably because they organically fell in love like everyone else. Cousin marriages have been viewed as normal for the overwhelming majority of human history, it's not like parents and children or siblings where it's almost always been a huge taboo. Not sure why Tennessee needed to use legislative time on this, it would be one thing to say you shouldn't repeal it somewhere where it was already illegal but expanding the prohibition of cousin marriages is pretty low priority in any case.

[GMantis]

I don’t see the problem here. Banning first cousin marriage is a minimal restriction of freedoms (you are free to marry the other 99.99999% of the population), and it does have an actual rational purpose. Incest, including repeated cousin marriage, leads to a heightened rate of genetic disorders and disability.

Would you be in favor of banning women over 30 having children? Because the danger of birth abnormalities after this age is comparable to the danger of marriages between cousins.

[Electric Circus]

Try that in a small town.

[DaleCooper]

Not sure why Tennessee needed to use legislative time on this, it would be one thing to say you shouldn't repeal it somewhere where it was already illegal but expanding the prohibition of cousin marriages is pretty low priority in any case.

It got introduced as a virtue signal and no one wanted to be the guy standing in the way of outlawing incest. I haven't read anything about this situation but I'll bet a lot of money that this is what happened.

[MarkD]

I

What, no one here, in this thread, is shocked and/or appalled at this government tyranny? No one is calling this unconstitutional? What happened to It's unconstitutional for a state government to interfere with the fundamental right of adults to marry one another! We're talking about a human right, and states cannot try to regulate it!
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=431639.msg7966311#msg7966311
See how many users in this forum are libertarian-minded about marriage. Where are they now?

I'm here, but I supported same-sex marriage on both counts. I would strike the law down in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The law is too broad. A more narrowly-tailored law could easily conform to the Consitution.

You know how I feel about that kind of reasoning, as well as that interpretation of the EPC.