Legislating Against Love

Perhaps there is no greater development that can be credited to the sexual revolution of the 1960’s than the near-universal acceptance of the fact that consenting adults have the right to define love and relationships on their own terms. More recently, the move for gay rights has demanded that the public accept and acknowledge that some of those relationships are not always traditional, but are as genuine, sincere and legitimate as any other. But in the push for gay marriages and civil unions, one group of people who exhibit true love for one another has been left behind—first cousins.

Many states still maintain archaic regulations outlawing such marriages, but the reality is that they have no grounds for keeping first cousins apart. Consanguineous marriages are neither unethical nor unhealthy, and therefore should not be prohibited.

Most people are opposed to the idea of first-cousin marriage simply because of some vague and ignorant fear of genetic deformities. The National Society of Genetic Counselors recently released findings to suggest that, contrary to popular belief, first-cousin marriages pose only a minimal health risk. Those who oppose the marriages often cite the 1.7 to 2.8 percent increase in the risk that cousin-parents have of passing a genetic disease on to their children as compared to the initial risk level of about 3 or 4 percent in marriages between complete strangers. But the risk of genetic disease is often higher in marriages between people of the same race or, surprisingly, the same hometown. The risk of sickle cell amemia and Tay Sacks disease are increased in marriages of couples of similar genetic ancestry. It should be no surprise that first cousin marriages follow the same pattern. A study done by several hospitals in Saudi Arabia, where the rate of consanguineous marriages is 52 percent, showed that even though the babies from such unions weighed slightly less than average babies, the rate of inherited diseases or miscarriages was not significantly higher.

The close-minded views of state governments, absent any real scientific merit, should not be allowed to stifle romance between consenting adults. Congress must protect these rights by passing legislation that would protect first cousin marriages in all states. It is highly hypocritical for the government to deny marriage to these couples when they allow those with even more easily transferable conditions to marry. A child whose parents each have a single gene for a recessive disease such as sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis has a 25 percent chance of actually contracting the disease, yet the government does not restrict their marital choices. Even more damning is the case of dominant genetic diseases like Huntington’s disease, where if even a single parent has the disease, the child has a 50 percent chance of contracting it.

In fact, the United States’ government is one of the last first-world countries that prohibits first cousins from marrying (at least in most states). Japan and all the countries in Western Europe allow first cousins to marry, and none of these countries is known for having a substantially higher level of genetic diseases in its population. Here at home, 19 states already permit first cousins to marry and, based on the evidence currently available, there is no reason to allow the other 31 states to deem such marriages illegal.

Marriages between first cousins have often been labeled “incestuous” or “sinful” or just plain “nasty” by those who lack a real understanding of the risks involved. However, this same reaction greeted interracial marriages decades ago. In that case we ultimately saw love and self-respect triumph over hostility, ignorance and “voodoo” science. The government must actively acknowledge that cousins, too, can fall in love and then must provide them the protection they deserve.

—Frank Wu