Getting Cousin Marriage on the Legislative Agenda
How can we get repealing bans on first cousin marriage on the US legislative agenda?
I think it would clearly help in getting started to consider why it has not already been raised as an issue, given facts like that no other Western country prohibits it and that the genetic arguments have been shown to be hollow.
I can see at least two big reasons why it's been neglected:
1) The affected percentages are lower in the US than in many other countries. The most recent studies were done around a half century ago and found 0.2% of Roman Catholics married to a first or second cousin. We don't have any data at all on non-marital relationships or for non-Catholics, a demographic that is now over 75% of the public.
2) Cohabiting cousins can blend in amongst strangers, acquaintances and at least some friends.
However, we should definitely balance these factors against this:
1) Cousin marriage is largely still seen as a perversion and is not recognized even as a legitimate political issue in the United States.
In addition to understanding this as oppressive, it is itself another reason why bans on cousin marriage haven't been disputed. For example, today there is a great deal of media coverage about the issues of race and gay marriage in the United States. Gays and ethnic minorities may receive their share of cruelty and bigotry, but at least there is an expanding community recognizing that these phenomena are unjust. On the other hand, when cousin couples are made out to be stupid, disgusting, incestuous, "polluting the gene pool," etc., there is no comparable consciousness and especially anger at the injustice. Discrimination against cousin couples is not being fought through any kind of coordinated effort, and so those afflicted are inevitably left atomized, alone, and at the mercy of potential accusers.
I think an apt analogy here, and probably a much better one than comparisons to gay marriage, is actually to miscegenation. Compare the uproar over the fact that a justice of the peace refused an interracial couple a marriage license in Louisiana last month to the fact that in over half of US states it is official policy to deny the same license to cousin couples. If we restrict ourselves to black-white marriages, the numbers involved are on the same order of magnitude: there were 422,000 black-white marriages in 2005, according to the Census Bureau, or 844,000 individuals. If we use the 0.2% figure, then multiplying by 124 million married individuals gives 248,000 people. However, we need to take into account that cousin marriage is illegal in most states, so this understates the number somewhat. Also, the number of black-white marriages has exploded since the landmark Loving vs. Virginia ruling, with the percentage more than tripling since 1970.
On Justice Bardwell's behavior in Louisiana, the ACLU says that it represents "bigotry and prejudice" and "would be both embarrassing and disturbing in any year." It therefore recommends "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice." But in the case of denying cousin couples the right to marry, their organization presumably does not believe this constitutes bigotry or prejudice, since none of its state chapters have ever raised the issue.
That brings me to the question of how to get this issue on the agenda. In order to start, it will be necessary to contact progressive organizations and convince them to take up the cause. To identify some possible candidates I decided to consider Wikipedia's list of organizations advocating gay marriage, since I couldn't find a comparable list for miscegenation or civil rights. Removing organizations exclusively devoted to gay rights, we find:
National Organization for Women,[82] the AFL-CIO,[84] the ACLU,[85] the American Psychiatric Association,[86] the National Association of Social Workers,[87] the Service Employees International Union (SEIU),[88], the National Education Association[89], the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights[90], People for the American Way, Secular Coalition for America, Center for American Progress, Moveon.org, Drum Major Institute[91], Institute for Policy Studies[92], Americans for Democratic Action[93], Progressive Democrats of America, Campus Progress, Democracy for America, Progressive Majority, NARAL Pro-Choice America[94]
There's also the Green Party and various state Democratic parties. I would hope that eventually all of these organizations can be persuaded to advocate cousin marriage, but since resources in getting this started are scarce and I may be acting alone, prioritization is needed. I tend to rule out the unions as good starting points because unlike discrimination against gays, discrimination against married cousins is probably not much of a workplace issue (in the same way as discrimination against interracially married couples is not, per se, much of a workplace issue). Somewhat analogous reasoning about their foci leads me to axe the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, though these might be worth coming back to. The feminist organizations I rule out for a different and unfortunate reason: many of the Islamic societies with the highest rates of cousin marriage are also extremely patriarchal, and I fear that some feminists may have an impression of cousin marriage as a kind of back door for Middle East-style sexism. This superficial association is one that I think can certainly be overcome, but not without a good deal of dialogue. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has to go because it's an umbrella group, not a real organization, but I ended up considering one of its members, the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights. A couple of think tanks got removed because their issue focus isn't relevant. Finally, I ruled out Moveon.org and Democracy for America because my personal impression is that they're incapable of taking issue stances that aren't explicitly Democrat-approved beforehand.
That leaves us with:
Green Party
ACLU
Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights
People for the American Way
Progressive Democrats of America
Secular Coalition for America
NJ Democratic Party (my state)
Center for American Progress
This list is ranked: it represents a very rough gauging of how easy I think it would be to get these organizations to support cousin marriage. The Green Party is simply awesome and if the issue was properly explained, I think there is a very good chance of actually getting it into their national platform for the 2012 elections. The ACLU is a natural ally here, though as a judicially focused organization they would doubtless be more motivated if an actual case was presented of first cousins being denied a marriage license. A major task in soliciting the ACLU is hence finding a couple willing to come forward and file a speculative legal case. As a preliminary effort one would surely also want to consult with ACLU staff about their willingness to actually accept the case.
The next few organizations are small academic think tanks. The modus operandi there is pretty straightforward: just contact their staff and discuss any willingness to take a position. Progressive Democrats of America is fantastic but their issue focus is mostly concentrated on non-social issues. Their state chapters, however, do engage in some gay rights work. Meanwhile Secular Coalition for America is an explicitly anti-religious organization, so it would be probably be necessary to find a religious organization banning or restricting cousin marriage that it could be properly "anti" to. The Catholic Church and its requirement for a dispensation for first cousins comes to mind as a possibility, but it's not one I'll take up since I personally have Catholic roots.
Then we have the NJ Democratic Party. Unlike states like Massachusetts, I'm not even sure that we even have a party platform in New Jersey. Anyway, this is a huge task, far beyond my individual capabilities. Dead last we have the Center for American Progress, which I almost discounted for reasons similar to Moveon.org and Democracy for America, but in the end retained because it's an academic organization and might perhaps have a member or two who can be individually persuaded.
That about rounds out the list! I will try to influence some of these organizations to endorse cousin marriage in the future, in addition to promoting causes that benefit everyone like Medicare for All. Actually, I won't be blogging for a while-I have some personal concerns that desperately need taking care of, like say finding employment. I will be back at around 5 or 6 p.m. to address comments on this post, though. Cheers!
















Hey, I'm from Arkansas too!
Where 'bouts you from?
November 15, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab87/khin3/cousin-marriage-map.png
P.S. Fuck you.
November 15, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure this ban on marrying cousins is rooted in both social taboo and our national heritage. During the many decades of the great westward expansion there was a massive imbalance between men and women. That long existing "shortage" of women may have something to do with it.
As for today, I think you've got quite a hill to climb. It's just not much of an issue for most people and the longstanding restrictions have been adopted by many people as good regardless of what the facts may show regarding genetics and so on. Right or wrong, I think most people see marrying close cousins as a form of incest.
November 15, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That long existing "shortage" of women may have something to do with it.
You're definitely right that it was related to Western expansion. However, I think the issue is simply that states that joined the Union after the Civil War codified their marriage laws in an era in which cousin marriage was increasingly seen as bad. Those were the Western states.
As for today, I think you've got quite a hill to climb.
That point is well taken. But we've got to try.
November 15, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but I think one of the factors during the period was to give everyone a fair shot at the available pool of women. If cousins could marry then it really limited the already limited group of females. Just a conjecture though.
November 16, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are cousin marriages in states that allow it legally recognized in other states?
If the answer is yes, that is still no reason to refrain from making this universal, but it at least leaves options open for some who could find a way to establish legal residency sufficient to get married.
November 15, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are cousin marriages in states that allow it legally recognized in other states?
That is a very good question. There is a list at the bottom of this page. The answer is that a bit over half of the thirty states prohibiting it do not recognize marriages elsewhere. Regrettably that now includes Texas as of 2005.
November 15, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no expert in genetics, but I think the real danger with cousins marrying cousins is when it is a pattern repeated through multiple generations. In such cases the genetic package of the offspring becomes more homozygous, leading to an increased probability of the expression of relatively rare recessive genes. The likelihood of gene expression is increased if the recessive gene is all ready present in the genetic make-up of the first generation, (the "founder's effect"). This is a particular problem with xenophobic demographic groups, such as the Amish population, where dwarfism, and other genetically controlled 'conditions' are common. Not that it's an argument for banning first cousin marriages, but it is a fact that should be known to the participants of such unions.
November 15, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the real danger with cousins marrying cousins is when it is a pattern repeated through multiple generations.
The issue of "inbreeding depression" can crop up if mating is restricted to a small group over time. However, in many cases in practice, this does not happen. Much of the difference is attributable to the "founder effect" that you mention above: if the initial founding population of a group has certain hidden recessive genes, then subsequent inbreeding may reveal these hidden problems in the offspring's phenotype. It may explain why there were such profound differences in outcomes between say the Rothschilds and the Darwins, on one hand, and the Hapsburgs on the other.
This is a good link on that subject.
Not that it's an argument for banning first cousin marriages, but it is a fact that should be known to the participants of such unions.
True enough.
November 15, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most memorable wedding invitation I've ever received was from the "Smith" family in South Carolina announcing the impending marriage of cousins. It read ((names have been changed to protect the innocent or the guilty, depending on your view):
John Doe Smith II and Jane Doe Smith
cordially invite you to attend the marriage
of their daughter, Janie Doe Smith
to John-John Smith.....
I dunno. Seems to me Mh2o's point is well-taken. In the first generation it probably doesn't matter. But down the family line? Why risk it?
November 15, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy - Miguelito's point was related to inbred populations within society in which the prevalence of shared recessive genes is greater than normal. The excess risk of cousin marriage for ordinary individuals is very small, and lower than risks for other types of genetically-influenced afflictions in marriages between unrelated individuals - for example, the risk of type 2 diabetes in offspring if only one of the partners is diabetic exceeds the risk of a hereditary problem in the marriage of healthy cousins.
There are no medical reasons for prohibiting cousin marriages provided that appropriate review has been made of family histories, and the engaged couple is properly informed.
November 15, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the Wendy part. I actually don't know what your initials stand for.
November 15, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good guess on name, Fred.
I defer to your expertise. Question, though -- is the risk as low for mental illness as you describe it being for physiological conditions?
November 16, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
One just has to look at the history of European Monarchy to see what is wrong with cousin marriage.
November 15, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cousin marriage is common among Amish and some Mennonite groups.
C
November 15, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must mean the Amish and Old Order Mennonites. And if by cousins you mean first cousins, then you are apparently not correct. By Old Order custom first cousin marriage is prohibited: the actual source of many of the genetic problems they've experienced stem from a founder effect that has manifested after generations of xenophobia (but not first cousin marriage, in general).
November 15, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
what's love got to do with hemophilia?
November 15, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, PseudoCyAnts. The risk of hemophilia is related to the family history of the female partner in a marriage, but not to whether the partners are cousins or unrelated. In other words, in the presence of a family history, a woman's risk of having a hemophiliac son or a carrier daughter is unaffected by either the family history of her husband, or whether or not he is a cousin.
November 15, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is another great point. In fact a while back I was having a conversation with someone who claimed that cousin marriage in their family was responsible for some inherited polydactyly. So I did some looking to the subject: as it turns out, assuming that the ailment was not part of a larger disorder, this is impossible because it would have been an autosomal dominant trait.
November 15, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or we can look at Charles Darwin, whose grandparents were first cousins, and who in turn married his first cousin and had ten children, many of whom were quite bright.
November 15, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember growing up in Louisiana where the bullies would test your ability to refrain from getting in a fist fight by informing you that your parents were cousins from Arkansas, insinuating you were a poster child for retarded kids everywhere. So it's no wonder everyone thinks it's gross when we're taught by other kids that it's wrong, even though that same bully probably made out with his hot cousin at the last family reunion behind a bush somewhere. Truthfully, I don't know anyone who hasn't at least thought about it- wishing that really cute cousin of yours wasn't related to you. But be what it may, we all tried to behave because we knew we could get busted and then spend the rest of our lives being ridiculed for trying.
You know, I never really knew much about the eugenics movement until I got to college. There I learned that starting with the Civil War, state governments spent an entire century sterilizing over 60,000 people in the US, for no other reason than they had a deformity or mental illness that healthy people didn't want to see duplicated. Under the guise of protecting the general public, they went even further to dictate that all interracial couples, including blacks and whites, could not legally marry or procreate, and neither could cousins, because their children would taint all their years of good work purifying the race. Fortunately, eugenics got the bad name it deserved and it all but ended in the US after WWII, when we found out that Hitler openly praised us for giving him the groundwork he needed to justify the Jewish holocaust. So finally in 1964, blacks and whites were starting to be allowed to marry each other, non-perfect people were allowed to live freely, and all were allowed to have children if they so chose. But, for some reason, cousins are still not allowed this basic freedom in half of the states, with at least one state legally requiring sterilization before marriage. This, with all of the scientific data in the world showing that random cousins marrying and having children are generally not any more likely than your healthy, unrelated next door neighbors of having a child with a genetic disease. Considering no other "group" of people are currently so openly denied their basic human rights in half of this country, I would like to say that I am surprised this hasn't spawned some sort of uprising. But I know one of the reasons why it hasn't. In 2005, Texas Representative Harvey Hilderbran made it a 2nd degree felony in this state if cousins are caught in any kind of intimate relationship. A felony that is punishable by incarceration of anywhere from life to 2-20 years, and a fine up to $10,000. As if public ridicule and the inability to marry weren't enough.
Khin, I hope you have some success in your endeavor, and if there is anything I can do to help, I would be more than happy to lend some support to help fight what I perceive to be a massive social injustice in this country. People can talk all they want about how "icky" they believe cousins marrying might be, but when it comes to these and other "victimless crimes," I say to each their own- live and let live. We all should have the right to love and marry who we choose. That's what personal freedom in this country is supposed to be all about.
January 21, 2010 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink