Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,
Background & context
A number of jurisdictions are now moving to prohibit marriage between first cousins (i.e., two people whose parents are siblings).
• For example, in the U.K., the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons (sponsored by Richard Holden) in 2024/2025 with the aim of outlawing first-cousin marriages.
• In the U.S., the state of Connecticut passed a bill specifically named AN ACT PROHIBITING FIRST COUSIN MARRIAGE (Bill HB-6918) which adds a provision that “on and after October 1, 2025, no person may knowingly marry such person’s first cousin.”
• As of 2025, research indicates that first‐cousin marriage laws vary widely among U.S. states — some ban it outright, some allow it with conditions, others permit it fully.
Thus, the current article addresses “the government’s new bill to ban cousins from getting married,” in a context of one such proposed or enacted measure (depending on jurisdiction). I’ll treat it generically (though many details below refer to the Connecticut / UK style model) and discuss motivations, implications and concerns.
What does the bill propose
In essence, the bill seeks to add “first cousins” to the list of prohibited relationships for legal marriage. Key features generally include:
• A statutory prohibition: persons who are first cousins would be ineligible to obtain a marriage licence (or their marriage would be void).
• A specified effective date (for example, in Connecticut the law takes effect 1 October 2025).
• The language often uses phrases like “no person may knowingly marry such person’s first cousin.”
• The law typically does not penalise existing marriages, or it includes grandfathering provisions (in Connecticut, the bill states it did not want to jeopardise marriages that occurred when legal).
• The prohibition may be only on marriage, not necessarily sexual relations or cohabitation (depending on the jurisdiction). In CT, the law bans the marriage licence but does not criminalise relations.
Thus the practical upshot: once the law is in force, first‐cousins cannot legally marry under that jurisdiction’s married persons law.
Why is this bill being introduced
Several motivations (some overlapping) are cited in favour:
1. Health/genetic concerns
One of the most-commonly offered rationales is that procreation between first cousins increases the risk of recessive genetic disorders, birth defects, infant mortality, etc. For example, Connecticut legislators pointed to “science shows that procreation between first cousins increases the chances of birth defects.”
Supporters argue that banning cousin marriage is a public‐health measure.
2. Aligning legal norms / remedying “outlier” status
Some jurisdictions note they are one of the few remaining places where first‐cousin marriage is allowed, so the law is introduced to align with the majority or with what lawmakers perceive as accepted norms. In Connecticut, for instance, one legislator said: “we looked at it and saw we were sort of an outlier state that didn’t ban it.”
3. Social / cultural arguments
Some of the commentary goes beyond genetics to argue that first‐cousin marriages may raise issues of family loyalty, insularity, nepotism, or weakening of broader social bonds. For example, one article argues that consanguineous marriage may undermine trust and civic institutions.
4. Legal clarity
In some legal systems, sibling/parent/ancestor marriages are banned, but cousins have been omitted. Legislators argue the law needs to fill the gap. For example: “State law already explicitly bans marriage to a person’s parent, grandparent, child, … and the bill adds cousin.”
What are the arguments against the bill?
There are significant objections and caveats raised by critics.
1. Civil liberties and personal autonomy
Some say the government should not dictate whom people may love and marry. For example, an MP in the U.K. argued the matter should be treated as a health‐awareness issue rather than legislative prohibition.
2. Cultural sensitivity
In many communities (immigrant or traditional populations) first‐cousin marriages are culturally accepted, and banning them may be seen as stigmatising or targeting particular groups. As one charity pointed out, such laws could discourage affected individuals from seeking help.
3. Enforceability and unintended consequences
Critics argue that enforcement may be difficult (how do you ascertain cousin-relationship in all cases?), and that banning such marriages may push them underground (leading to fewer legal protections for spouses). The law might lead to unintended consequences, such as marriages performed abroad then moved back, or people circumventing the restrictions.
4. Overemphasis on one risk while larger issues exist
Some commentators argue that although there is an increased risk of genetic disorders, the magnitude may be small and overshadowed by other public-health risks (e.g., poverty, access to healthcare). Addressing root causes (genetic counselling, education) might be more effective than an outright ban.
Potential implications and questions
Here are some of the practical and legal implications of such a ban:
Legal/administrative
• Marriage licenses: Officials must now check family‐relationship disclosures to ensure first cousins are not marrying.
• Recognition across jurisdictions: If one state bans cousin marriage and another allows it, there may be questions about recognition of out-of-state marriages (though many states already have rules).
• Existing marriages: The law must clarify whether previously valid marriages remain valid, or whether they become void. Some bills explicitly avoid retroactive invalidation.
• Penalties / compliance: Many such laws simply render the marriage void rather than criminalise the parties. In Connecticut’s case the law includes “no penalties” for consensual relations.
Social/cultural
• Stigma and community reactions: For communities where cousin marriage has been common, a ban may generate push-back, concerns about discrimination, or cases of non-compliance.
• Health outcomes: If enforced effectively and combined with public health measures (genetic screening, counselling), supporters might argue the ban will reduce certain birth‐defects. But the actual magnitude of effect could be modest and indirect.
• Equity issues: There may be questions about how the law affects different cultural or socioeconomic groups differently, and if there is a fair process for education and support.
Philosophical and normative
• Role of the state: Is marriage regulation appropriately used to limit relationships between consenting adults on the basis of genetic risk?
• Precedent and slippery slope: Some critics worry that if first cousins are banned, what about second cousins, or other degrees of kinship; does it lead to deeper intrusions?
• Balancing rights and welfare: The tension between individual autonomy (the right to marry) and societal interest (reducing health risk) is at the core of the debate.
Case spotlight: Connecticut
To illustrate concretely, the law in Connecticut gives a useful case study.
• The bill (HB-6918) states: “On and after October 1, 2025, no person may knowingly marry such person’s first cousin.”
• The law passed amid bipartisan agreement: legislators from both major parties supported it.
• The stated reasoning includes that Connecticut was an outlier (among states) still allowing first-cousin marriage, and that scientific evidence of increased birth defects exists.
• The law deliberately avoids penalising marital relations (i.e., it’s not criminalising the relationship) and includes a non-penalty regime for previous marriages.
• Once in force, couples who are first cousins seeking a marriage licence in Connecticut will be turned away (based on the statute).
My analysis: benefits, limitations & what to watch
Benefits
• The ban provides legal clarity, aligning the statute with what many consider to be public-interest norms in terms of genetic risk.
• It may serve as a symbolic signal that the state is addressing health and social concerns linked to consanguineous marriage.
• For couples unaware of the risks, the law might prompt genetic counselling and increased awareness (if paired with outreach).
Limitations
• The actual risk reduction may be limited — while first‐cousin marriages do carry higher risk of certain genetic conditions, the absolute incidence is comparatively low in many populations.
• Enforcement and compliance could be challenging: how do authorities reliably determine cousin relationships (especially in complex family trees, blended families, immigrant communities)?
• If people simply marry abroad or circumvent the law, the benefits might erode and legal protections (for spouses, children) could suffer.
• There is a risk of cultural backlash or perceptions of discrimination; and the law’s implementation will need to be sensitive to community concerns and ensure adequate education rather than simple prohibition.
What to watch
• Implementation: Are marriage‐licensing offices given clear guidance? Are there mechanisms to verify sibling/vs cousin relationships?
• Public health infrastructure: Is there parallel investment in genetic counselling, education, and support services for communities where cousin marriage has been common?
• Recognition of out‐of‐state/foreign marriages: Will the jurisdiction recognise cousin marriages done elsewhere? Will there be litigation over recognition?
• Monitoring outcomes: Will the government assess whether the law actually reduces adverse health outcomes, or whether unintended consequences (underground marriages, fewer legal protections) emerge?
• Broader cultural effect: How are affected communities responding? Is the law sparking constructive outreach or opposition?
Attached is a news article regarding the new government bill to stop cousin getting married
Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley
In-- Google tag (gtag.js) --> <script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-XDGJVZXVQ4"></script> <script> window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-XDGJVZXVQ4'); </script>
<script src="https://cdn-eu.pagesense.io/js/smilebandltd/45e5a7e3cddc4e92ba91fba8dc
No comments:
Post a Comment