Posted on 01/17/2015 10:54:02 AM PST by djf
Well, not really. But maybe!
Can you marry your cousin? It's an interesting question.
In some states, YES, you CAN marry your first cousin! In other states - it's a no-no, forbidden.
Now HOW and WHY was this state of affairs (or marriages, be it whatever) allowed to exist? How and why did states HAVE THE RIGHT to determine under what conditions marriage was allowable?
Because it was RECOGNIZED by the federal government that equal protection WAS NOT VIOLATED by such marriages!
Thoughts? Ideas?
(btw, my cousin is kind of cute, but she's just not my type...) ;-)
Does she have a blouse full of goodies?
What IS the story on those two???
Genetic malformations, certainly a syndrome. Lots of recessive genes could have paved the way...
I bet she swims faster than most. Could be quite the asset to the high school swim team for sure.
Back in the day, a generation or two ago, so the story goes... at a time when my family tree apparently had no branches there were first-cousins who wanted to marry.
It was illegal in County A. It was also illegal in County B.
They done some figuring and came to the conclusion that is was NOT illegal on a riverboat on the county line.
Yes, with groom in County A and bride in County B they done got hitched on a river boat.
Makes a guy proud, no?
I’m pretty sure here in CA you can marry your dog.
This is OBVIOUSLY a 14A issue, specifically in regards to the “Equal” protection clause. Federal courts today pay no attention to the Bill of Rights, 10A States Rights especially, so you want to find a good lawyer RIGHT NOW and sue the living shit out of your state because you can’t marry your cousin.
First cousins only share 1/8 of their genes. Second - is that the children of first cousins marrying? - would share 1/32.
You can have dangerous mismatching of genetics between total strangers. Certain genes, if shared by both parts of a couple, will make it hard for them to have children or have healthy children. Yet they are not related in any recent generation.
“Probably because when people marrying their cousin isn’t incredibly frequent like European nobility...”
Prince Charles comes to mind...
generally it has to be at least your third cousin. familial geneaology distance, not literally cousin #3.
cue the deliverance soundtrack....
Kids - Don’t Take Meth.
Meth leads to believing sleeping with your sister is a good idea.
Which leads to offspring like this.
Well, my point is it depends. Depends on the state.
And it always has.
Yet the Federal government has never said it was a federal power to say who a person can/can’t be married to.
It is part of the police power of the state and is forever in the hands of the state.
Don’t worry, aborted fetuses look worse. Then there’s the STD babies, some of whom if they survive birth won’t last long afterwards.
I am also pretty sure I would have a right to ignore it and not face any charges whatsoever.
Assuming you’re talking about SCOTUS ruling on the right of SSM (I call it that to annoy homo-*ssh*les), I think they’re going to rule states can ban SSMs. That’s why they’re also going to rule on whether states have to recognize SSMs, since state SSMs will be ruled legal, but states will have to recognize those marriages.
If I recall, double cousins are the offspring of two siblings who marry two other siblings. Example: Judy and Jean are sisters. Ralph and Robert are brothers. Judy marries Ralph. Jean marries Robert. Judy and Ralph’s kids are double cousins of Jean and Robert’s kids.
I wonder if that North Carolina law has anything to do with Chang and Eng Bunker marrying sisters and having 21 kids? That’s where they settled down.
Freedom not Sodom!
There’s freedom in America, the land of the red white and blue;
but there still must be laws, things you just can’t do.
You can’t marry your sister, your brother, or the family pet;
a sheep, or a goat - at least not yet!
That how is it with homosexuality, what the Bible calls sodomy;
men lying with men as with women, is perversity!
That they’re not designed that way, tis easy to perceive,
but yielding to sinful desires, man is soon deceived.
A moral wrong is not a civil right; like the sin itself, that’s confusion;
calling evil good and exchanging light for darkness, is sure delusion!
History tells us where this will lead, from societies now in dust,
When a nation casts off the laws of God, and follows it’s own lusts.
Promoting a sin which sends one to Hell from an early grave,
dishonors God and robs man of the Life He gave.
There’s but one answer: the Risen Jesus gave Himself for our sins;
Repent and believe, then truly follow Him!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.