I can't speak for the rest of you, but I know I certainly didn't see this coming. Given the current conditions around the country, legislators have their hands full trying to protect the public from any number of crises. But Republican lawmakers in Tennessee have set aside time in their busy schedules to attempt to put an end to the scourge of... first cousins marrying each other. After considerable debate, the bill, endorsed by Republican representative Gino Bulso, finally passed. What was the impetus driving this effort? Particularly with the aftermath of the gay marriage debate mostly behind us, was this really a pressing item on anyone's agenda? (WSMV News)

A bill passed in the Tennesse House that would make it illegal to marry your first cousin in the state, but it did not pass without argument from one lawmaker who pushed an amendment to make it legal for cousins to marry each other if they first received genetic counseling.

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.

Trust me, I have plenty to say about this, but it's hard to even know where to begin. Representative Bulso explained that the bill needed to be passed as a "public health-related matter." His argument was that allowing cousins to marry would increase the chance of them conceiving a child with birth defects. The bill does, however, provide an exception for couples who receive "counseling from a genetic counselor" prior to the nuptials. (How charitable of them.)

Let me first say that I'm not unsympathetic to the traditions and impulses underlying this legislation. I grew up in an era when the entire idea of incestuous marriages of any sort was looked upon as scandalous. I will briefly share an embarrassing story from when my wife and I became engaged and our mothers met for the first time to help with the wedding planning. Looking at the proposed invitation lists, they quickly realized that they shared a grandfather in common. I was so horrified that I moved out of our bedroom that same day. (Yes, we were "living in sin" during the engagement.) It was only after some research into the family bibles that they discovered that my fiancee and I were related by marriage, not by blood. Things went back to normal and we've been together for more than thirty-five years. 

But my feelings about marriage and the government's role in the process really began to change during the entire gay marriage debate leading up to the Obergefell decision. Many justifications offered for governmental restrictions began to make less and less sense to me. That Supreme Court decision was even brought up during the debate in Tennessee and one of the bill's sponsors amazingly claimed that it wasn't a problem because two male cousins could marry without running the risk of conceiving a child with birth defects. 

Everything about that argument is simply wrong as far as I'm concerned. First of all, any couple has a certain risk of producing children with birth defects, no matter how far separated their family trees may be. In the general population, children have a 3 to 4 percent chance of being born with a serious birth defect. The risk for children of first cousins rises to roughly 6 percent. The real risks come with the children of siblings or parent/child pairings, where the risk rises to as much as 28%.

Even with all of that said, where does the government - at any level - draw the authority to determine how much risk is acceptable? I firmly support the need for appropriate government agencies to educate people and spread awareness about health risks, including the ones being discussed here, That information should be spread to everyone, however, not just specific couples being put under scrutiny. After that, let everyone decide for themselves. Many people carry traits that make them more susceptible to particular conditions or diseases that they might pass down to their children. Will the government forbid them to marry? 

I have reached the point where I believe the government needs to be out of the business of marriage except when it applies to minors if adults are seeking to marry them as a fig leaf to cover pedophilia. The only other exception might be those with mental infirmities requiring a guardian or caretaker, largely for the same reason. Beyond that, allow adult Americans to marry who they wish and keep Big Brother's nose out of the wedding cake. Tennessee should seriously consider walking this proposal back.