More Gay Marriage Hypocrisy Exposed
By Jesse Barron on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
One of the big arguments that those who are against gay marriage like to make it that marriage is about procreation.
Another argument is that it will lead to incest, pedophilia and a bunch of other undeseriable things. None of which are true.
The interesting thing is that while only five states currently allow gay marriage, twenty one states allow marriage between first cousins — no questions asked — and an additional six states allow it under certain circumstances.
For the states that only allow marriage between first cousins under certain circumstances, one of those conditions is often that the couple is already unable to reproduce. There goes the procreation argument!
The fact that states even allow marriage to first cousins throws out the incest argument. It also makes the West Virginia jokes kind of not-funny since marrying your cousin is not even permitted in that state.
Marrying your first cousin is completely legal in California. You would have thought that the Prop 8 folks would have put a ban on marrying your first cousin along with the ban on gay marriage. Their argument is that they want to protect marriage — and that banning gay marriage is not done out of hate — but apparently marrying your cousin does not destroy the institution of marriage as long as you’re straight.
Perhaps if we try to ban first cousin marriage the response will be “but they didn’t choose to be cousins!” Because you know, we choose to be gay. I made the choice to be gay at around age 5, because that is when I was first attracted to another boy. Plus, by choosing to be gay, I chose the much easier path in life. [/sarcasm]
The rundown:
States where marrying your first cousin is legal: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia.
States where you cannot marry your first cousin: Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
States where you can sometimes marry your first cousin: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah, Wisconsin
States where two non-related people who are in love and not related can get married tomorrow: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont
The really progressive states where you can marry your same-sex cousin: Connecticut, Vermont
It sure would be interesting if pro-gay marriage lawyers used these arguments in the court cases going on around the country. Better yet, if there is a proposition added to the ballot to ban marriage between first cousins in California, just like the guy the guy that wants to ban divorce in that state.
Corrections: Maine was originally listed as a state where same-sex couples (and cousins) could marry. This has been corrected and we apologize for the error.
(Photo courtesy Scubaben’s Flickr photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/scubavagabond/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Know your status? Click here and get tested for STD's!
Tags: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Gay, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, LGBT, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington DC, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
READERS COMMENTS
RELATED GAY NEWS
LATEST GAY HEADLINES
Senate confirms lesbian judge
In March, 2009, President Obama nominated openly gay Judge Marisa Demeo to
Senator Udall calls for DADT repeal in 2010
Colorado Senator Mark Udall, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
Elle Woods Goes Country
I never thought I was a Broadway fan until I saw Legally
Anti-gay sign in Wyoming sign considered free speech by officials
On the path that more than 100 students
Who will win Drag Race?
Next Monday (April 26th) at 9/8 CT on
[...] This post was Twitted by The_Woch_Man [...]
Capacity to procreate is not a legal requirement to enter into a legal marriage. Likewise, capacity to procreate is not a religious requirement for marrying. Even Christian fundamentalists would have to admit that their favourite book contains examples of marriages where at least one of the spouses was “barren”: e.g. Serai, wife of Abram (Genesis 11:29-30); the unnamed wife of Manoah (Judges 13:2); and Elisabeth, wife of Zacharias (Luke 1:5-6). Anyone who suggested that all post-menopausal women should be barred from matrimony would be laughed off stage.
Similarly, infertility is not considered grounds for the legal annulment of a marriage. Indeed, infertility is not even grounds for a religious annulment. In the debate about marriage equality, procreation is such a patently bogus argument that anyone spouting it should be suspected of using it as a polite cover for anti-gay animus.
A minor factual correction is needed. The final two lists should include Massachusetts rather than Maine.
Correction made! Thanks for catching that! As for Christian fundamentalists admitting that their favorite book contains marriages where at least one of the spouses was “barren,” I cannot help but to wonder how many who claim to be devout actually know that and more importantly, how many would admit it when arguing against gay marriage.
Strange new world, how did we all get to this point?
All the current population were created by villages of the same families
The offspring that are living today were not grown from a seed in the ground
Darwin = survival at all cost = incest is best, cousins and family members created the current population, logic
Adam and Eve for sure incest from the bible to the current population
logic
All creatures are incestual and homosextual, period
Facts are the truth that will set you free
Kudos to CT where we just celebrated the one year anniversary of our marriage equality law on 11/12. And congrats to all the couples coming here to wed from all across the country.
Onward to equality,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
This article supposes that there are 2 sides to this issue. There are not. The LGTB citizens of the United States are intentionally having their civil rights denied, and further, voted on by the very people who seek to abuse and oppress them.
Something is very, very, very, very wrong with that scenario. And our Government exists to PROTECT law-abiding citizens from abuses such as this. They are NOT supposed to PARTICIPATE in it. There is a word for that kind of treatment.
That word is Apartheid.
Correct, facts will set us free. The fact is also that gay marriage will not spawn incest (as one argument against it goes) and that it will not suddenly ruin marriage when marriage already has so many exceptions to begin with.
Thanks! If gay marriage falls through in DC (and luckily, it's looking like it won't), I hope that you will one day perform the marriage ceremony for my boyfriend and I!
It would be my pleasure, but it does look like marriage equality will happen in DC very shortly.
Last summer I officiated for 2 women who live in DC, one of whom is an attorney at Boies, Schiller and Flexner. And attorneys Boies and Olson are challenging CA's Prop 8…
Onward to equality, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
VERY interesting!
[...] This post was Twitted by NOWBuffalo [...]
The hypocrisy here is comparing gay marriage to cousin marriages… including the hypocritical judgmental tone that our side got from anti-gay marriage folks. I'm wondering, why are we stooping to their level? Getting together with your cousin isn't consider incest in most of the rest of the world, and to be frank, most of us are decedents of first cousins somewhere in our lineages. Anyway, just another example of why our side is losing… because we're a bunch of ignorant Americans. To put it simply, the U.S. is the ONLY western democratic republic where first cousin marriages are illegal in half the states. Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, and all the rest of Europe… completely legal. Which goes to show that we're the only western country where it's okay to take away fundamental rights based on the “ick” factor and being a bunch of judgmental assholes.
Why do they keep making this stupid anology?
Denying marriage to cousins means a guy can’t marry this SPECIFIC person. He can still find happiness in finding someone he’s attracted to. After all, there is no sexual orientation where you are only attracted to you relatives.
Denying gay marriage means you can’t find happiness with ANYONE. It’s a complete denial of your sexual orientation.
That’s a HUGE difference.
@david, I’m sorry, but you’re trying to justify denying marriage to cousins while saying that denying gay marriage is justified. Neither are justified. We deny marriage to nuclear-family relatives because to breaks down the nuclear family (people are also denied marriage to their adoptive parents and children), and there is a high chance of having birth defects with parent/child and sibling couplings. Msost people I know aren’t even close to thie cousins. I know people who can barely name their cousins. Furthermore, science has debunked the “having deformed babies” myth already repeatedly… the rate of birth defects of cousin couplings similar to having kids over 40. So do we deny people over 40 having kids? I think not. (Not to mention that most everywhere else in the world, it’s legal.)
So this is where denying marriage to first cousins and denying marriage to gay couples is exactly the same. It means that you cannot make a lifelong commitment to the person you love that is protected by law… FOR NO GOOD REASON.
Correction: the first sentence of the last comment should read “@david, I’m sorry, but you’re trying to justify denying marriage to cousins while saying that denying gay marriage is wrong. Neither denying marriage to first cousins nor to gay couples is justified.”
Also your first argument about first cousins was the same argument that interracial marriage opponents made:
Denying marriage to [interracial couples] means a guy can’t marry this SPECIFIC person. He can still find happiness in finding someone he’s attracted to. After all, there is no sexual orientation where you are only attracted to [people outside your race].
Doesn’t sound right, does it? Didn’t think so.
You post awsome articles. Bookmarked !