• Announcements

    • KC

      Get Smart on the Web   09/16/2016

      Be informed on better ways to stay safe on the web -- Source: Mozilla
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gotitGOOD!

PA DEM REP wants to change the law

This topic has had no activity within the past six months. It is recommended that you start a new topic instead of replying to old topics.

13 posts in this topic

The responses are kinda stupid on this post but there is other internet evidence that Mr Flynn wants to change the outdated Anti Cousin Marriage Law...

Rep Martin Flynn

email: Rep Marty Flynn

I emailed:

"I am as well as a few others that I have met are interested in your view of consanguineous marriages, specific to 1st Cousins. This archaic law needs to be changed in our opinion.The science behind the genetic issues has proven that an issue is marginal at best."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder if marty flynn was really the person posting under his own name that the story was false? you should check into that. i'd love to voice my support to him if he is truly wanting to abolish the law against cousin marraiges!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've found, this looks like an April Fool's prank. If there's something else on the internet that I missed, please point me to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someday it will happen. I'm in a state where it's illegal for us to get married even when we're old enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someday it will happen. I'm in a state where it's illegal for us to get married even when we're old enough.

So are we. We just went over the border and got married.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response from Rep's office to an email I sent to them:

Good morning XXXXXXX.

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding this issue.

At this time, Representative Flynn has not been able to definitively find research that is in full support of your position.

Further, we are not clear on your question ? you indicate that your interest is regarding the ban on 3rd degree consanguineous marriages, yet your note indicates that your interest is specific of 1st cousins ? which would be of the 1st degree, and arguably a much greater risk of pediatric disorders in offspring of first degree parents, vs 3rd degree parents (National Institutes of Health).

Also a study published by the University of Pittsburgh (attached) seems to indicate increased pediatric risk in 1st degree parenting.

Representative Flynn is always open to new information and will continue to reflect responsibly on this subject.

Again, thank you for taking the time to express your concerns on this issue. While your town is quite a bit out of our district, we are nonetheless concerned about the opinions of ALL of the people.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response (a cut and paste I keep handy in a word document when I respond to gay\ cousin marriage articles on the  web, my new hobby)...

Thom,

I also understand that the article that I read on a forum was an April fools joke.

The study that you reference is not as accurate or in depth as Alan H Bittles study or anything since 2011 that you can google.

First degree of consanguinity Are Parent, Sibling.

Second Degree are Aunt, Uncle, Niece\nephew.

Third degree are 1st cousins Who share  12.5% Genetic material.

If you dig deper in your research you would find that 80% of all Marriages since the beginning of the practice are cousins.

20% of all world marriages are 1st cousins.

Darwin, H.G. Wells, Einstein and his parents among thousands of others married their first cousin.

You might also find that the less progressive and knowledgeable states that ban 1st cousin marriage are based on flawed eugenics studies from before DNA was understood.

You have been mislead.

We married in Maryland anyway.

We are tired of being compared to Homosexual \same sex partners who want to wed when in reality, there is no comparison.

There are actual scientific advantages as well marrying and bearing offspring with cousins. There is a lower rate of bodily rejection and an increase of purged genetic abnormalities. We are WASP Americans of Irish descent. We didn't experience the Westermark effect (didn't grow up around each other) but did have a strong GSA.

The West has this ignorant outlook that stems from faulty eugenics study and also to keep families from maintaining power and wealth by maintaining assets within their clan unlike the British and other related European power families. The stigma was attached to the rural families because they had little access to healthcare, flourine (advanced water treatment) especially before the invention of the automobile.

If you peel the onion back you will find there is no real reason to ostracize cousin marriage. It is sad that we are compared to gay marriage which has nothing at all to do with hetero consanguineous relationships from second degree and beyond relationships. It is theorized that 80% of all marriages from the beginning of the practice have been first cousins. 200,000 first cousins wed in the US annually. Repeated first cousin marriage over multiple generations (double first cousins) are another story.

The US is archaic in practice and thought when it comes to us.

Cousin marriage has been common with humans since the dawn of our race.

Do you think Darwin would consider a same sex partnership part of natural selection? One that cannot self perpetuate?

It has been proven in Iceland , which had ample medical and marriage records and a high percentage of first cousin couples that bore more children than non related couples.

Birth defects with first cousins are equal to the same as any 34 yr old woman in an unrelated marriage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again for taking the time to explain this information to me.

As you know most any research on-line can be incomplete or questionable, and I genuinely appreciate your making this more clear to me. I will convey this information to the Representative.

As you may suspect, and as I do believe, there is and will be a huge reticence on the part of most any legislature ? particularly in Pennsylvania ? to deal openly with this issue.

It may be a step in the right direction if you are familiar with another state that has updated ?consanguineous marriage? laws that we could use as a template for consideration in Pennsylvania.

Again, thank you XXXXXXX for taking the time to help me understand this issue on a more factual level.

Happy Holidays!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of the US states have changed their laws. Half of the US and China are the only remaining countries on the globe that ban 1st cousin marriage.

This Wiki is accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

It is my belief that law makers ignore us because of the stigma that has wrongfully been attached to it due to ignorance.

Maryland has a large percentage of Pa citizens that marry here, as we did.

Back in 2004, a couple near me tried to get the local courthouse to marry them (1st cousins). This brought national attention to the subject as they went to Maryland as well and bypassed Pennsylvania's archaic laws.

A lawmaker in in Maryland got wind of the practice and made public his intent to draft a bill to stop he practice.

National media brought out the ignorance of the gent and so the bill was never introduced.

I have been posting this correspondence on a website forum called "cousincouples.com" where there is a lot of information on the matter.

20/20, Oprah, ABC News, The New York Times,  and many other National shows and networks have brought up the issue but have been ignored.

21 states, it  is legal for first cousins to get married, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures' website (NCSL). Professor Alan Bittles of Murdoch University and Edith Cowan University in Australia has studied cousin marriages for the past 30 years. He says it's likely 10.4 percent of people worldwide are married to a close relative or are the children of such a marriage. "This equates to over 700 million people," Bittles says

I don't expect the legislature to devote much time into something that is perceived to have little political gain.

I am saddened that there is a taboo about something that is purely based on ignorance and constantly used as a tool to defend gay marriage. PA is moving to make same sex marriage legal because it has been decided that it is unconstitutional to stop the practice but law makers will not legalize cousin marriage in this state.

A larger percentage of voters are married cousin couples that might also support a legislator that would pick up the fight for us.

I know that I am a Conservative that would be swayed by this type of legislation.

Hope you enjoyed the holidays.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that very few states have actually changed their laws in a positive way where cousin marriage is concerned.  Most of the states that permit cousin marriage do so on the basis of a biblical interpretation of marriage prohibitions.  Most of the states that deny cousin marriage do so in the basis of a Eugenics foundation that was popular at the time that those laws written.  For example, Kansas, founded in 1861, was following the model that was popular at that time and has not updated them substantially since.  Maryland, founded as one of the original 13 colonies also has not made any significant change to its consanguinity laws for marriage (though one representative keeps trying in a negative way).  Texas did recently adopt a change to prohibit cousin marriage but did so only as a method of attempting to mirror Utah law in order to specifically target Fundamentalist Mormons (and the Warren Jeffs clan in particular), which may actually be an excellent case for invalidation under the 14th amendment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my view, any changes to marriage laws in favor of cousin marriage will occur in those states that have already legalized gay marriage.  Those states that are fighting against gay marriage are definitely NOT likely candidates to accept cousin marriage because doing so would open a door they don't want opened.  In other words, it was a hard enough fight before, nearly impossible in those states now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that very few states have actually changed their laws in a positive way where cousin marriage is concerned.  Most of the states that permit cousin marriage do so on the basis of a biblical interpretation of marriage prohibitions.  Most of the states that deny cousin marriage do so in the basis of a Eugenics foundation that was popular at the time that those laws written.  For example, Kansas, founded in 1861, was following the model that was popular at that time and has not updated them substantially since.  Maryland, founded as one of the original 13 colonies also has not made any significant change to its consanguinity laws for marriage (though one representative keeps trying in a negative way).  Texas did recently adopt a change to prohibit cousin marriage but did so only as a method of attempting to mirror Utah law in order to specifically target Fundamentalist Mormons (and the Warren Jeffs clan in particular), which may actually be an excellent case for invalidation under the 14th amendment.

We married in Maryland.

Yeah, I mostly agree and it is sad that they compare us to gay marriage. Like apples and marbles comparison.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0