The bill would remove first cousins from the list of family members with whom it's illegal to have sexual relations in the state.

The bill would remove first cousins from the list of family members with whom it’s illegal to have sexual relations in the state.

Edit: there is an update to this story and Rep. Nick Wilson has withdrawn the bill saying it was filed in error. See the new thread.

  • CoffeeAddict@kbin.socialOP
    4·
    10 months ago

    Here is a link to the actual legislation:

    © Engages in sexual contact; with a person whom he or she knows to be his or her parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great-grandparent, great-grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother, sister,[ first cousin,] ancestor, or descendant. The relationships referred to herein include blood relationships of either the whole or half blood without regard to legitimacy, relationship of parent and child by adoption, relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and relationship of stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild.

    First cousin is crossed out.

    Remember everyone, this is the party of “family values.”

    Edit: Nick Wilson now claims this was filed in error. See the new thread.

    • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
      2·
      10 months ago

      I can already see several problems here.

      1. How are they gonna prove what a person “knows”

      2. How many generations does “ancestor” or “descendant” factor for? This law is not prepared for cryogenics or time travel to be introduced to society

      relationship of parent and child by adoption

      Didn’t Queers used to adopt one another before marriage equality was realized? Can this legislation be used to go after couples with those old (or current, if Obergefell gets struck down) jury-rigged marriages?

      • Arcane_Trixster@lemm.ee
        1·
        10 months ago

        “Can this law be used to hurt older gay people? Also, what about time travelling gays, can we hurt them too?”

        You people…

        • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
          3·
          10 months ago

          I never mentioned the time travelers or enstassised persons potentially adversely affected by this law being gay specifically, and I think in Kentucky of all places “could this be used to hurt Queer people” is a pertinent question.

          Now what do you mean “You people”?

  • tygerprints@kbin.social
    2·
    10 months ago

    Well I live in Utah so, anyone who hasn’t had sex with their first cousin is probably considered a Eunich here. And the truth is, a lot (and I mean, a WHOLE lot of people) have had sex with their first cousins, for many it’s their first sexual experience. I knew a coworker who admitted to it, and then later a woman who was a friend of a friend. And another coworker who got drunk admitted to us. So, it goes on A LOT.

    I’m not really arguing for or against it being incest, I guess a case could be made, but it seems like it’s not really going to change it happening no matter what label we put on it.

    • CoffeeAddict@kbin.socialOP
      1·
      10 months ago

      Not too sure about the existing laws, but it looks like it was going to be illegal in the first draft but someone officially crossed out “first cousin” in the final draft of this legislation.

      • flipht@kbin.social
        1·
        10 months ago

        This is just how bills are filed when they’re intended to amend a law. The law as it’s written is included, and parts are struck out, added, etc. It’s basically track changes.

  • elucubra@kbin.social
    1·
    10 months ago

    If such a law were passed in European countries, most royalty and nobility would land in jail