Question triggered by the same-sex incest thread: why do some states in the US prohibit marriage of first cousins?
And a follow-up: how many states do so?
And a third: are there other countries which prohibit first cousin marriages? I can’t think of any, off-hand.
For the same reasons they prohibit sibling marriages. They just drew the line at a different place than most jurisdictions.
Sure, but that just moves the question a bit, right? “Why do some US states draw the line at cousin marriage as opposed to sibling marriage?” I mean, one can assume the states don’t just give the big ole Wheel of Incest Taboos a spin and go from them.
A ban on sibling marriage isn’t hard to understand, because it’s easy to see that the children of sibling marriages are a lot likelier to come out … odd. I don’t know if it’s that easy to reach that conclusion with cousin marriage.
So, what’s the reasoning here? Do we have good legislative histories of these laws, or other evidence that can show us what happened?
That said, it’s an increased risk and not an outright guarantee of birth defects, but there is a valid biological rationale that can be considered.
Is the prohibition on cousin marriage localised in a particular region of the US? Did the laws come into force at about the same time, eg when the eugenics movement was starting up at the beginning of the 20th century?
My WAG is that some rural communities with small populations needed to ensure a wider gene distribution. In the English village where I was born, almost everyone was related in some way, and in the days when transport was mainly Shank’s Pony, first cousin marriage would have been common, and (innocently) half siblings. In America, where distances are vastly greater, it would have been a bigger problem.
There’s also a difference in how strictly the prohibition is enforced. Some states don’t allow first cousins to marry in the state, but recognize marriages from other states. A few states completely refuse to recognize cousin marriage at all. Kentucky, for example, in its handbook for county clerks (PDF) says:
The extra risk of birth defects from a single instance of cousin-marriage is pretty minute (as your link notes). I suspect the prohibition made sense back when populations of people tended to stay in the same small communities for decades or centuries, and you could have inbreeding over many generations. Nowadays, I doubt its really justified.
But its not like there’s a huge community of married cousins out there pushing for a change. And the few cousin couples out there who do want to get married can probably just do so (its not like the Gov’t actually checks the family trees of people filing a marriage certificate). So it’ll probably stay illegal into the indefinite future.
It’s not very often that the reason for something is given in the bible, but in the lists of people you can’t have sex with (your aunt, your step-mother, your sister-in-law, even if they are widows), the reason is that they are your father’s or mother’s “near kinswomen,” and there’s a list of “near kinsmen” as well.
It’s probably just the case that some people took the prohibitions absolutely literally, and did not prohibit anything not specifically mentioned, while others took the mention of “near kin” to include anyone equally closely related, but not specifically mentioned.
Also, back when there was less mobility, it was more common for cousins to grow up like siblings. In places where this tended to be the case, there probably was a prohibition. In places where you might see your cousins once a year, not so much.
Two mini-hijacks if I may …
That’s a Britishism I’ve never encountered; care to enlighten us Continentals?
At least here (US) & now, “sister-in-law” means either the sibling of a spouse or the spouse of a sibling. Neither of which is somebody related by blood to the person the rules are addressing.
Asking for logic behind a Biblical (or legal) prohibition is always iffy, but this item doesn’t seem to make basic sense, whereas the others in the list certainly do. What am I missing? Also, for those of us not well-versed (ha ha) in Biblical references, where is this prohibition found? Not disagreeing with your cite, just curious to read the context myself.
Although both judaism and catholicism have permitted uncle-niece marriage. The latter with a — paid for — dispensation.
However the RC won’t allow same-sex marriages anyway, so uncle-nephew marriages are out; but presumably as judaism is in favour of same-sex marriage this will be treated the same as the uncle-niece bit.
It means “on foot”. Shank is a somewhat archaic word for the lower part of the leg, so “Shank’s pony” (or nag, or mare) is a jocular way to refer to walking.
When my mother married my father’s brother (both spouses having died a few years earlier) only a reform rabbi would perform the ceremony. Presumably either the commonwealth (Pennsylvania) didn’t know or it didn’t care.
But it’s not all the US states, and it didn’t happen in Canada, which equally has great distances. So I’m curious why it happened in some states.
One way to read the passage is that some people think that brothers sharing a woman is just a little to close to bother-on-brother.
That’s probably not the original reason, though. It probably is, and don’t laugh, to avoid some awkward family get-togethers if the woman in question is not the brother’s widow, but his ex-wife. Judaism is all about family harmony.
Leviticus 18.
No, Judaism does not. That does not mean that if a Jew lives in a country where it’s legal, he won’t do it. There are plenty of assimilated Jews, and you cannot judge from their behavior what is acceptable by the strictest point of Jewish law.
Reform Judaism is in favor of same-sex marriage. Orthodox Judaism is not, although Orthodox tend not to concern themselves with making what they practice the law of the land, or concern themselves with what gentiles do. They do not care if a gentile eats a ham and cheese sandwich on the Shabbes of Passover, and even think it’s a little odd that the goyim tend to get their sons circumcised.
As I understand it, the Amish population of the US is having some genetic trouble due to inbreeding. It’s not due to excessive first cousin marriage per se, but the fact that they almost always marry within their church and that few outsiders convert. The end result is that almost everyone’s ancestry goes back to the same few hundred people circa 1750. The average white American whose ancestors have been here a few hundred years is likely going to have admixture from all sorts of populations - some Irish here, a little French Canadian there, a Scottish Highlander there, maybe great-grandpa’s war bride from someplace more exotic, etc.
The Westermarck effect may have had an effect here. If a guy grew up in a big extended family where his girl cousins were nearly as close to him as his sisters, it’s only natural that he would consider cousin marriage to be squicky.
On the other hand, doesn’t Judaism actually require sibling-in-law marriage in some cases?
That may be because religious extremes are more pronounced south of the border.
The only instance I can think of off hand is the Onan story. In that case, the brother had died before having a son who could inherit his property - property that included his wife, the hypothetical son’s mother. HS would have been expected to assume the care and feeding of his mother through her old age. Presumably, she would like that better than being a shirt-tail addition to a more distant relative’s family.
Onan was not supposed to marry his sister-in-law, he was supposed to get her pregnant. If he did that quickly, the child would then be his brother’s son and inherit his brother’s property. Onan was, unfortunately, ambivalent about that.
No, Judaism does not. That does not mean that if a Jew lives in a country where it’s legal, he won’t do it. There are plenty of assimilated Jews, and you cannot judge from their behavior what is acceptable by the strictest point of Jewish law.
[/QUOTE]
I do not understand this answer: a cursory glance at rulings shows this is OK for religious jews ( and OK by me also, since I just think it’s not my business ).
*traditionally, Judaism does permit marriages between uncles and nieces. In fact, it is considered in the Talmud to be a meritorious match (B. Yevamot 62b). By the late medieval period, however, at least some Jewish legal authorities wished to end or limit the practice. For example, Sefer Hasidim declares that a marriage between an uncle and niece “will not be successful,” an apparent effort to discourage the practice. *
Rabbi Jeffrey Wolfson Goldwasser
*A Man May Marry:
Prohibited Marriages - Chabad.org
[ Oddly though, a man may not marry ‘A married woman with whom he committed adultery, but now divorced or widowed.’ In most cultures this would be regarded as a tidying-up operation. ]
Rhode Island permits it from 1764 on, but only for those of the jewish faith.
Still, historically Judaism hasn’t forbidden uncle-niece marriage, because the Leviticus passages prohibiting incest do not include uncles and nieces.[91] And the Rhode Island legislature apparently took the view that the Christian laws of incest made sense for Christians, but the Jews should have their own rules.
Washington Post
However, wanting to marry a niece ( or an uncle ) must be pretty rare.
But those in favour of equality, same-sex marriage etc., can’t deny the same right to uncle-nephew if one allows uncle-niece.