• ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The bill as amended by Rep. Gino Bulso, R-Brentwood, would prohibit first-cousin marriage unless the parties to the marriage contract received counseling from a genetic counselor licensed by the board of medical examiners. Bulso argued during a House floor session on Thursday the bill – as written – could violate the Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court decision, which made same-sex marriage legal across the country.

    Bulso, while explaining his reasoning, said the bill was introduced as a public health-related matter, adding the law needed to be passed to prevent cousins from getting married and conceiving a child that could have an increased risk for birth defects. Bulso argued two men who are first cousins could get married without the risk of conceiving a child with birth defects.

    This is just another bigoted conservative with an agenda. He’s using this no-brainer anti-cousin-fucking law to push anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. Gino Bulso was a lawyer for just shy of 40 years before joining the Tennessee House of Reps in 2022. He knows this isn’t a reasonable argument and he doesn’t care. He’s just trying to attack Obergefell v. Hodges. He’s basically saying “See what *the gays* are making me vote against?! I don’t want to allow cousin-fucking but Obergefell v. Hodges says we have to! Trust me, I’m a lawyer!

    Edit: JFC nothing brings out the weirdos as quickly as an article about a ban on cousin-fucking.

    • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      He’s a Tennessee Republican so I’m sure he’s terrible. But you don’t think there is a legal argument of a law being overly broad that restricts the rights of same sex couples where the legislative history shows it was based on increased risk of genetic mutations in pregnancy?

      Maybe (probably) he’s saying it to beat on LGBTQ people, but a broken clock and all that.

      • ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Maybe (probably) he’s saying it to beat on LGBTQ people, but a broken clock and all that.

        I am not willing to give republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their invocations of Obergefell v. Hodges to defend cousin-fucking. If you’d like to that’s your prerogative. But doing so is completely unearned on their part and suggests naivety on yours.

        • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Blatant homophobe or no, it’s a valid legal argument that hasn’t been tested in court.

          Edit: Unless you have some caselaw already addressing this that I’m not aware of, I’m pretty sure we’re having two completely different conversations.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      8 months ago

      Or - mind blowing possibility - maybe you’re bigoted against cousin marriage like the people you hate are bigoted against gay marriage.

      The risk of genetic defects is extremely small. People don’t like it because it’s icky, which is not logically consistent. People used to think interracial marriage was icky.

      Let people do what they want.

      • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, I don’t get it, personally. I’m really not a fan of governments telling people who they can fall in love with. You’d think there’s more important issues to deal with.

        I mean, I know people who’s parents are cousins. It’s literally a non-issue I couldn’t give less of a fuck since they all seem happy. It’s none of my, or the government’s, business.

        That said, it is weird, the lack of logic that goes on around this issue. It’s simply wrong because it’s wrong so it’s therefore good for the government to make laws prohibiting it.