Kissin' Cousins

I was talking to one of my cousins on the phone and we were talking about dancing (he can dance and I cannot). While we were talking, I looked at a reply he'd sent me and it said something along the lines of he and his friends talking about sex. Gross.

Not saying he's gross, but just saying that the thought of my cousins (or my siblings) having sex just sort of repulses me! I just don't like thinking of my family that way. I never even liked the term "kissing cousins". Yuck!

But not everyone feels that way. Apparently many states now allow for first cousins to marry! The list can be found at http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm . I couldn't believe it! I know in some areas of the world that is the norm, but wasn't that taboo in America?

Looking deeper into the subject, I found many web links about cousin couples. It seems that prior to civil laws were passed and religious creeds were established to ban cousin marriages, this was actually a preference.

I've always been told that if relatives (like first cousins) were to conceive and give birth to children, the offspring had a greater chance of having developed birth defects. This is a possibility, but those thoughts came before modern genetic testing was invented. Did you know that scientifically speaking simply marrying within your own race increases the odds of birth defects just as marrying within your own town further increases your chances? Factually, couples that are related by blood only have a slightly higher chance for birth defects than non-related couples. Here are the facts from cousincouples.com (a very interesting website):
Fact:
Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk.
Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family)
In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children.
The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age.

Worldwide, the percentage of cousins marrying is 20%. 1 in 1,000 cousin couples marry in the U.S., and in Japan it's 4 in 1,000. Per CousinCouples.Com, "It is estimated that 20 percent of all couples worldwide are first cousins. It is also estimated that 80 percent of all marriages historically have been between first cousins". The site goes on further to say that "Albert Einstein married his first cousin. And so did Charles Darwin, who had exceptional children". Other famous names that came up have been Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jerry Lee Lewis, Sir John A. MacDonald (The first Prime Minister of Canada), and even in the bible they mentioned couple marriages.

Each U.S. state, however, prohibits marriages between parents and children, sisters and brothers, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews. There are strict "incest" laws in the states, thus not making those types of marriages even legally possible.

Though legal the United States of America (26 states allow first cousin marriages and 26 states do not), it is still very taboo here. However, there is an old saying in West Africa that roughly translates to "cousins are made for cousins". The U.S. is somewhat alone among developed nations in outlawing marriage among first cousins. In European countries, there is no prohibition. In some cultures, particularly Islamic ones, first-cousin marriage is encouraged. And let us not forget about Royalty (they like to 'keep it in the family').

American society is so skeptical about first cousin marriages because of very poor research done in the 19th century. It was the Europeans that first discovered more scientific knowledge on the subject, eventually discrediting American findings. This is for "cousin couples" only, not other relationships (father/daughter, etc)between relatives, which has shown 7 to 31 percent of offspring having adverse medical outcomes.

Then there's the biblical/religious views on it. The bible is very specific about which relationships should not be made, and none of them include first cousins.
Forbidden Marriages Scriptures:
Between parents and children - Leviticus 18:7-8
Between stepparents and stepchildren - Leviticus 18:8, 17
With your paternal or maternal aunt - Leviticus 18:12-13
With your uncle or aunt - Leviticus 18:14
Between brother and sister and half-brother and half-sister - Leviticus 18:9
Between stepbrothers and stepsisters - Leviticus 18:11
With your daughter-in-law - Leviticus 18:15
With your sister-in-law - Leviticus 18:16
With your granddaughter - Leviticus 18:10
With your step-granddaughter - Leviticus 18:17

I've found that the Roman Catholic Church does allow First Cousin Marriages. As strict as they are, this surprised me very much! Not because the Roman Catholic Church is perfect, but because their stance on things has always been so "this can be done or this is forbidden".

The scare of genetic deformities has always been the root why it was taboo for couple marriages. But because most state marriage laws have gotten away from mandatory blood tests, it would be safe to say that the concern is not serious enough to warrant steps preventing such mishaps.

So the next time you're at a family reunion and you see someone that appeals to your eye there's no need to worry; chances are it's legal! lol

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

Criminally Fashionable

Image taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/fashion/30baggy.html

In Atlanta there's talk of mandated fines given to people who are caught "with their pants down". Actually, it's more or so directed to teenagers and young adults who wear their pants hanging down, exposing their undergarments-all for the sake of fashion. Even women are wearing low cut pants that expose the strings to their thongs, and sometimes even the back of the thong itself.

Congressman C.T. Martin has displayed major disgust regarding this latest fashion trend. He issued statements to the associated press expressing concerns that this is an "epidemic that is becoming a major concern around the country". I tend to agree with the congressman in that all across the country this "look" does not cause a positive impression when viewed, and can sometimes even be offensive. Try eating out at a restaurant with your family and look over to a brunette bending down showing her behind, thong at all. It could definitely shock you and sometimes even ruin your appetite.

I had a supervisor once who had just lost all of her weight and really wanted to show off her new figure (she also had a tummy tuck done, so she was nearly perfect). She wore a slender new business suit that was fitting well; until she bent down after dropping a marker during a meeting and exposed those thong strings. Everyone gasped, and I concluded that she knew perfectly well that her thongs would show, and that she wore her clothes that way thinking they were attractive. It was not.

My oldest son is into the whole "pants hanging down" thing. I hate it. He walks so funny, almost like a duck or worst. But he keeps wearing his pants that way. My husband explained to him that even though this is a hip hop trend, it is in fact derived from a prison trend (Parishioners wore their pants sagging below the his bottom, this was a sign that he was homosexual). My son says that he's not a homosexual and it doesn't matter what other people think; which totally contradicts his reasoning for wearing his pants down low anyway (saying, "it's the style, mom!").

As a parent, it can be embarrassing to see my sons (or daughters)wearing their clothing that way. I wonder how they would feel if I did the same thing around their school, the neighborhood, or their friends. I can only imagine the names people would call me, and I can guarantee that my kids wouldn't like that very much at all.

But what does it say to a young person when this fashion trend is engulfing the nation, even spilling out to other countries? Well, some places want the message heard to be that by "indecent exposure" of the undergarments, a citation will be issued and a fine will be mandated! Delcambre, Louisiana's lawmakers have already put this ordinance in place with the fine being $500 or up to a six-month jail sentence-whichever the judge chooses if the accuser is found guilty. In Mansfield, a town Shreveport there is a possible fine up to $150 plus court costs or a maximum of 15 days jail time. Other states are following this trend of establishing ordinances against the sagging style, however some states have failed due to objections towards to "freedom of expression". And, lets say, a homeless person was to have his/her pants hanging down-not due to fashion but because they didn't have a belt to hold their pangs up-; would they be fined and/or jailed? Who enforces this law and are there any exceptions to the rule?

And I also suppose, in all fairness, that if this thing gets any deeper, we could have the issue at hand of being mandated by law to dress a particular way in general. But I think that possibility is a bit extreme. Back in 2005, Virginia passed a bill in the House of Delegates which mandated a $50 fine for anyone with sagging pants, but after much ridicule from the citizens, the Courts of Justice Committee met "solely for the purpose of addressing this bill, senators admitted today that they had been embarrassed by the publics reaction and quickly voted to dismiss the controversial measure. The committee's vote was unanimous". They determined that the style of people's clothing could not be an issue governed by the government.

Not all states are dismissing the initiative, though. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) got several calls regarding this topic, stating that the ordinance would cause racial profiling towards black youths(even though this style isn't limited to one race in particular). The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees such as citizen's First Amendment rights, equal protection under the law, the right for due process, and the right to privacy. They've extended their services to all citizens, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor. The ACLU was founded in 1920. The ACLU's position was that they agreed that these efforts could possibly lead to racial profiling against the black community.

As cities crack down on this issue, independent businesses such as some public school systems have implemented stricter dress code restrictions. In most cases this has been successful in decreasing "sagging pants syndrome". It's a start, right?

Okay kids, here's my favorite part of the show! It's Q&A Time!

1- Is your city/state involved in creating/enforcing laws regarding pants hanging down?

2-What is your opinion on this topic?

3-Do you agree that a law or bill should be passed in your area, or is this a attack on your civil right to freedom of expression?

4-Any additional comments?

I've given the Q's, now you give the A's! Please leave a comment!

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

The letter of the law made easy

I'm surfing the net today, and ran across an article on Yahoo about legislation in Arkansas possibly having an emergency session regarding the marriage bill, which states that a minor can marry with parental consent if under the age of 18 if pregnant and with parental consent. Well, apparently there's a big screwup because the verbiage reads "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage." Well, this makes sense to me, but apparently the verbiage is too risky, as their thoughts are that this will allow anyone regardless of age (even as young as 10) to get married as long as the parent's sign off on it. They feel that this will allow pedophiles to drive to the state and marry children as long as the parent's agree and that people that would sell their kids for the right price (ie;drug addicts, sickos, low-life's, etc).
This is the photo caption that preceded the article. I only read it because it seemed so ridiculous, but as I read the article I began to understand why this was a real problem to them. There are some crazy people out there in the world!
We have to follow the letter of the law. And even though the law is written to protect us, some people use it to their advantage to get over on the system. So now they've got to go to a special session to try to correct their mistake. However, they are getting some push back because the law states that they can only correct a bill if there was a typographical error, and clearly there was not.

I was also shocked at the fact that some states are no longer requiring blood tests in order to obtain a marriage license. Though this may make the process quicker, it comes with some scrutiny. For instance, with the huge increase of HIV/AIDS and other STDs running rapid in our country (and across the globe), you'd think that blood tests would be a major advantage to the institute of marriage and family, but obviously all governments do not feel the same way. Not only would a blood test screen for disease, but it would also catch similarities in DNA, thus allowing foreknowledge of couples potentially being related (for example, individuals who have been adopted do not necessarily know who their true blood relatives are).

In addition to that, many states no longer require a waiting period for marriage. You can obtain your marriage license and get married the very same day! Even in swimming, there's a suggested two hour wait to get into the pool after eating. But I suppose the institutes that regulate marriages don't feel that marrying too soon could lead to disaster. They must not be reading the same divorce rate statistics that I've been reading.

They've made it so convient. You can just wake up one day, say "hey, let's get married", and go get hitched just as quick as you'd pull up to a fast food restaurant drive thru and get a value meal. And that's what American's want. They want it fast and easy with no thought process. No longer is Vegas the only "quickie" place.

And what about counseling. You could clearly be out of your mind, high on crack, quite unstable, or being forced to go against your will-but you can walk in and obtain a marriage license, leading to the "I do" which will ultimately change your life forever more. And what I want to know is what the rush is. Why has the marriage process been reduced to a time saver? Something so legally bound should have some stipulations, don't you think?

I'm trying to be objective here, and in a way playing 'Devil's advocate'. Honestly, the convenience of the new marriage process is in fact very satisfying for some people personally. For instance, a couple could get their marriage license on their lunch break, and if they don't already have a wedding scheduled, it's possible to get married right then and there! Let's hope they know they are right for each other. What about those that aren't so sure?

Now it’s Q&A Time.
Here are the questions:
1- What state are you from and what's the marriage law there?
2- What do you think about states that don't require blood tests? Is it necessary?
3- Do you think states should have stricter marriage laws?
4- In the case of the Arkansas bill, do you think there will be many ridiculously under-age marriages there?
5- Any additional comments?

There’s the Q, now give me the A! What are your answers?

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy