Legislation to ban 1st Cousin Marriage

[VisitationRights]

Just saw this, Richard Holden has introduced legislation to ban 1st cousin marriage:
https://x.com/RicHolden/status/1865770931588612234

I think it is about time but wondering if the proposed legislation is likely to be supported or not.

@Huffalumps

"I do find it hopeful however that younger generations of incestuous communities are going off the idea. Let it die a death and good riddance."

Whilst the practice in the UK Pakistani community dropped off in the last ten years from 60% to 46% it is dangerously and morally unacceptably high.

Those poor babies and children are the ones that suffer from this barbaric behaviour.

There's also a limit to the practicality of banning marriage between cousins.

Who checks? How do they check? How long does the check take/cost?

Cousins can't be identified from birth certificates. If it's going to be based on a declaration by the couple, how effective will that be? If it pushes these marriages to take place overseas, how could these marriages be identified in order to not recognise them?

Agree with @DogInATent - and ditto sex between first cousins that is consensual. Who is going to police or report this?

As a general principle, we should always consider whether legislation is the best way to achieve the end result or whether something else would be more effective. This is one of the things the civil service does - the minister has a policy objective, the CS come up with possible ways to achieve it and try to test those. Maybe health visitors in schools and churches explaining the risks. Or trying to get religious leaders and celebrants on side for a pre-marriage talk on the matter. Both off the top of my head and there are probably a bunch of other possibilities too.

@SheilaFentiman I think marriage between cousins ought to be prevented, I just don't see a realistic or practical control to enable it to be enforced.

Unless you put a bounty on them and let Ancestry members do it for you!

I would like to see the civil servant who would write down the bounty hunter idea 😀

This is not nonsense and makes no sense. It's not even a Government proposal anyway.

"Incentivise the private genealogy sector with performance-related rewards for identifying nuptials found to be in breech of the regulations after the fact."

😀😀 genius

But surely what you’ve referring to is where this happens over and over again within a family? If 1st cousins have a child together there’s no increased risk of a genetic disorder from that one instance. It’s where the parents of the cousins have intermarried and then the child of the cousins goes on to have a child with a close relative. Just once is fine: I know this because it was an issue I was peripherally involved with years ago, where geneticists were consulted. Plus of course it’s done in animal breeding.

"Not only that - a Muslim man can claim benefits for up to 4 wives. So whilst Bigamy is illegal in the U.K. - if the marriage takes place abroad - which is predominantly to cousins - they are allowed to claim for them back in the U.K. under polygamous marriage. This is in the DWP website. "

Please tell me this isn't true!

It isn't true.

Happy to help.

From the DWP

It absolutely IS true. Happy to correct you.

It’s extremely easy to prove it is. Just have a wander over to the DWP website and knock yourself out.

Funnily enough the quote I just posted is directly from the DWP website @Ludovico

When one is making an assertion about what a website says, it’s customary to provide the link to the point one is making.

Go a little bit further

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8169a740f0b62305b8ed0e/submission-to-dwp-minister-131206.pdf

I did. I went further than your highlight to the bit where it said what I posted above. Maybe you could try going a little further.

That seems to be a consultation document from 2006 (18 years ago) investigating policy options and concluding that the status quo should remain.

I assume the status quo is therefore the quote from @Zonder - but do you have evidence to the contrary?

Don't forget the British aristocracy.

Over and over again. Like this is a gotcha. The UK regards 1st cousin relationships as incestuous. Be the cousins aristocrats, Pakistanis or my cats. Just no.

"Like the Forest of Dean, all of Norfolk, and various islands?"

"Don't forget the British aristocracy."

I think the difference is that instances of first cousins marriage has declined dramatically in the West over the last 150 years as scientific knowledge of the dangers of first cousin marriage has been improved and Western culture has evolved accordingly.

Unfortunately in the UK the cultural practices of certain groups have not (mainly the Pakistani and traveller communities) followed this.

Although the rates of first cousin marriages in the UK Pakistani communities has fallen from 60% ten years ago to 46% today which although unacceptably high is at least heading in the right direction.

I think the difference is that instances of first cousins marriage has declined dramatically in the West over the last 150 years as scientific knowledge of the dangers of first cousin marriage has been improved and Western culture has evolved accordingly.

If you use Social Darwinism terms to describe the increase in maternal age as that is far more dangerous, then has Western culture not “devolved” ?

Its a complete joke that the proposed 1st cousin marriage ban is really “to protect the children”

@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice

"Its a complete joke that the proposed 1st cousin marriage ban is really “to protect the children”"

It is absolutely about trying to reduce the number of serious genetic disorders amongst children caused by first cousin marriages regardless of the background or culture of those doing so. It is barbaric to knowingly dramatically increase the chances of genetic through having a first cousin marriage.

Please tell me that you are not trying to play the race card on this.

@1dayatatime no, I don’t think it was a race based argument. I saw it as a devil’s advocate type argument - that if society wanted to reduce the risks of babies being born with physical/mental issues, maternal (and to a lesser extent paternal) age can also give rise to a greater frequency of such issues.

So if the rationale for banning first cousin marriage/procreation is the risk to the babies that ensue, isn’t there the same rationale for banning (blood) parenthood above a certain age?

And if you are instinctively for the ban of the first and against the ban of the second, that indicates it’s not just the risk to children that is driving your position.