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!



30 Comments







Sorry, but on a list of the top 100 priorities for legislation, this fits at about number 2,308,657.
Sorry, but how does repealing anti-miscegenation laws fit, in your view?
Cousin marriage has absolutely nothing to do with miscegenation laws, regardless of your attempt to equate the two.
And as I say, it is not anywhere close to being something that we, as a people should be spending time on.
Care to add a modicum of justification to that comment?
Well, I think the history of so many royal families with their in-breeding due to cousins marriage offers a pretty good argument against.
Look, allowing cousins to marry may be fine. I’m not a genetics scientist (and I doubt if you are either). But it is not miscegenation.
And it is not even close to being a legislative priority that I and most of the world are willing to waste our time on.
Maybe you should contact Rudy Giuliani for his support. I understand he has some experience in the matter.
See here.
If only they were still alive, maybe I’d contact socialist Albert Einstein, or perhaps Charles Darwin, who had ten children, etc.
So…care to add a modicum of justification to that? (Yes, there are differences. But I would argue they share many essential features.)
We can’t work on all issues at the same time. But in your tone, do I detect a hint of…what’s that…prejudice?
OK, 1st Cousins marry. Then the grandchildren of 1st cousins marry. Then their grandchildren marry. And we’re into European royal family territory.
Look, you can push for this to your heart’s content. Maybe you get people to listen and if so bully for you.
I think it is a complete and total waste of time and effort.
Obviously you disagree. You are not going to convince me that you are correct so we’ll leave it at that.
Edit: but as you go forward with this, you might drop the equation of this with miscegenation. Reading the definitions, I see nothing that shows cousins marrying as miscegenation. It is such a ludicrous comparison that it does impact any valid points you might actually be able to make.
1. No evidence that would happen.
2. Even if it somehow did, that’s still their right.
3. Link.
Do I detect a whiff of…what’s that again…maybe prejudice?
I’m still waiting on that modicum of justification.
It’s my opinion. Just as it is your opinion that 1st cousins should be allowed to marry.
The wonder of personal opinions is I don’t have to justify mine nor do you have to justify yours.
I don’t see any prejudice. I just see a waste of time.
As always, YMMV
I’m happy to try and get the rights for two same-sex strangers to marry, seems like a priority right now…
So…if I had posted this article about that Justice of the Peace in Louisiana, would you have said, “I’m happy to work on gay marriage right now”? Absurd response!
This post is ridiculous. It potentially could be used to make FDL look ridiculous. I suggest you find a real issue.
I suggest you stop being bigoted.
Don’t we have bigger fish to fry?
Like are you in love with your own cousin or something?
I’d just marry her and get on with it. Nobody is going to object.
Do we have bigger fish to fry than laws against black-white marriage?
Nice strawman argument, since those laws were struck down by the Loving decision in the 50s.
And really, good luck at getting the universe of people wishing to marry their first cousins as a distressed and oppressed class of individuals for discrimination purposes.
Actually Loving v. Virginia was in 1967. Are you suggesting that if it had never happened, the interracial marriage issue would not be particularly important?
I’m not sure that people wishing to marry interracially think of themselves as a “distressed class” either. But I think those who wish to marry a cousin certainly deserve an equal level of protection.
Again, nice strawman. I’m not saying that it was not an important decision nor am I saying that it would not be particularly important.
What I am saying, is that it is a fact in the US and no longer subject to the debate that you seem to be having.
I’m not going to ask why this is of such import for you. I will just reiterate that on a list of the top 100 legislative priorities, it ranks down around the middle 2 millions of issues.
Wonderful! Then we can proceed with the relevant analogy. Cousin marriage now shares certain characteristics, in my view, with interracial marriage before that decision. If you’re saying it would not be particularly important, then why isn’t cousin marriage?
Have you even read my comments? I’ve stated that I think it is a waste of time, and damn sure something that is not even remotely close to a priority in any legislative agenda I’m willing to push for.
If you want to knock yourself out beating this dead horse, have at it.
I’ve asked you repeatedly for that “modicum of justification.” You said interracial marriage would be an important issue if the miscegenation laws were still in effect. So why not cousin marriage? Again, there are some differences between these issues, but you have yet to articulate what difference in particular is driving you to say this. And I think the similarities are pretty compelling–both issues involve unjust restrictions on available marriage partners.
Saying that it’s a waste of time implies you support prejudice and bigotry. If you want to support bigotry, that’s your decision.
And I have stated repeatedly that I do not have to justify my opinion anymore than you have to justify yours.
We disagree. You are not going to convince me of the righteousness of your cause.
Get over it.
If you just want to spout unjustified and prejudiced statements, then I will be forced to quit wasting my time justifying my replies (or replying to you at all).
Thank you. As I say, you have your opinions and I have mine and never the twain shall meet.
Doesn’t make either of us correct. Doesn’t make either of us in error.
It is what it is. A disagreement. And only that.
“Don’t we have bigger fish to fry?” ; yes, MOST DEFINITELY.
Hey! Just live together that what they want the gays to do. What do You got to marry Her for? Why should You get rights that others can’t?
Exactly! Especially those black-white couples.
They should have known–there are more important issues!
Hey! I could care less who or what marries what or who. Everyone wants the laws and rules changed for them. I didn’t make um so don’t blame me.
Next it’ll be green and orange couples, wanting to be married.
Just go ahead and do it is my view.
Hey, it’s no joke. That’s what Springfield and Shelbyville split up over.
What a humorous comment. NOT!