GOP lawmaker says first-cousins should be allowed to marry because gays are

Far-right Republican Rep. Gino Bulso held up a bill in the Tennessee legislature on Thursday that would have outlawed first cousin marriage with a surprising argument: if gay first cousins can get married, why not straight ones?

“Is there a public health issue with a male marrying a male first cousin? Obviously, I think the answer is no,” Bulso said, as his fellow lawmakers looked on slack-jawed.

Related: GOP governor signs marriage law that could set the stage for a challenge to Obergefell

The law says ordained folks don’t have to officiate marriages they’re against. But there wasn’t a law requiring them to do so in the first place…

House Bill 2041 was sponsored by Rep. Darren Jernigan (D), who explained first-cousin marriage remains legal in Tennessee because of a 1960 decision by the Tennessee attorney general that marriage between first cousins doesn’t violate a statute prohibiting marriage between relatives.

Stay connected to your community

Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter.

Daily Weekly Good News

“I’m hoping in 2024 we can close this loophole,” Jernigan said.

Bulso introduced an amendment to the bill that would have made an exception for cousin-couples if they received counseling from a genetic counselor licensed by the board of medical examiners.

“There’s an additional risk, but it’s not as significant as some might be led to believe,” Bulso said of possible birth defects among inbred children.

Bulso cited the fact that his own grandparents were first cousins as he advocated for the change.

But it was his Obergefell argument that left fellow legislators on the House floor incredulous.

“The bill as drafted violates the Oberefell vs Hodges of the U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2015,” Bulso declared. “Let me explain.”

“Obviously, in my view, Obergefell was a grievously wrong decision,” Bulso, who led the effort to ban Pride flags in Tennessee public schools this year, said to no one’s surprise. “It was an example of the U.S. Supreme Court working as a super-legislature, but as we stand here today, Obergefell is the law of the land.”

“When it comes to the first cousin amendment, there are three possibilities under Obergefell. Possibility number one, you have a male and a male who are first cousins, who seek to become married.”

“Is there a public health issue with a male marrying a male first cousin?” Bulso lawmakers as eyes glazed. “Obviously, I think the answer is no.”

“The second possibility is you’ve got a female first cousin marrying a female first cousin,” Bulso continued. “Once again, there can be no public health issue there, because a female and a female cannot conceive a child.”

“Third, of course, you’ve got the possibility of a male first cousin marrying a female first cousin,” Bulso added. “And there, of course, you have the ability to conceive a child.”

“So, we go back to Obergefell,” Bulso continued down the rabbit hole. “Obergefell said very clearly, that there was a fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, which means that in order for us to pass a law that restricts same-sex marriage, we have to show a compelling state interest.”

“So unless somehow the sponsor or anyone else can demonstrate a public health issue with a male and male first cousin marriage, this bill violates Obergefell.”

Side-eye filled the House chamber.

Within moments, Democrats and Republicans alike voted to table Bulso’s poorly conceived amendment.

The bill went on to pass overwhelmingly. Bulso voted no.

Don't forget to share: