Edit filter log

'{{Short description|Wikipedia list article}} [[File:Cousin marriage map1.svg|thumb|300px| '''Laws regarding first-cousin marriage in the States''' {{legend|#000099|First-cousin marriage is legal}} {{legend|#0066ff|Allowed with requirements}} {{legend|#ff7777|Banned with exceptions¹}} {{legend|#FF0000|Statute bans marriage¹}} {{legend|#990000|Criminal offense¹}} ---- [[Marriage in the United States#Interjurisdictional recognition|¹ Some states recognize marriages]] performed elsewhere, while other states do not.]] '''Cousin marriage laws in the United States''' vary considerably from one [[U.S. state|state]] to another, ranging from [[cousin marriage]]s being legal in some to being a criminal offense in others. However, even in the states where it is legal, the practice is not widespread. (See [[#Incidence|§Incidence]].) ==Current position == Several [[states of the United States]] prohibit cousin marriage.<ref>[[#TheEssentialOttenheimer|Ottenheimer 1996]], p. 90</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts|title="Facts About Cousin BITCH ASS NIGGA."|website=CousinCouples.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180204070615/https://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts|archive-date=2018-02-04}}</ref> {{As of|2014|2}}, 24 U.S. states prohibit marriages between first cousins, 19 U.S. states allow marriages between first cousins, and seven U.S. states allow only some marriages between first cousins.<ref name="truth">{{cite web |url=http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/02/people-stop-thinking-appropriate-cousins-marry/|title=The Surprising Truth About Cousins and Marriage|date=14 February 2014}}</ref> Seven states prohibit first-cousin-once-removed marriages.<ref name="slate">{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/04/what-s-wrong-with-marrying-your-cousin.html|title=The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Surname|first=William|last=Saletan|date=10 April 2002|via=Slate}}</ref> Some states prohibiting cousin marriage recognize cousin marriages performed in other states, but despite occasional claims that this holds true in general,<ref>{{cite book| last = Wolfson| first = Evan| title = Why marriage matters: America, equality, and gay people's right to marry| year = 2004| publisher = Simon & Schuster| isbn = 978-0-7432-6458-7| page = [https://archive.org/details/whymarriagematte00wolf/page/256 256]| url-access = registration| url = https://archive.org/details/whymarriagematte00wolf/page/256}}</ref> laws also exist that explicitly void all foreign cousin marriages or marriages conducted by state residents out of state.{{citation needed|date=December 2010}} {{clear}} ==Summary== {| class="wikitable sortable" |- ! State ! First cousin marriage allowed ! Sexual relations or cohabitation allowed ! First-cousin marriages void ! Out-of-state marriages by state's residents void ! All out-of-state marriages void ! Sterility requirement to marry cousin ! First-cousin-once-removed marriage allowed ! Half-cousin marriage allowed ! Adopted-cousin marriage allowed |- | Alabama<ref>Code of Ala. § 13A-13-3. Alabama appears to have several laws voiding incestuous marriages, although § 30-1-3 does mention incestuous marriages being annulled.</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Alaska<ref>Alaska Stat. § 25.05.021 (2010)</ref><ref>Alaska Stat. § 11.41.450 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Arizona<ref>A.R.S. § 25-101 (2010)</ref><ref>A.R.S. § 25-112 (2010)</ref><ref>A.R.S. § 13-3608 (2010)</ref> | {{Maybe|Only if both parties are 65 or older, or one is infertile}} | {{No}}<ref>See ''[http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/0/doc/174958/Electronic.aspx Etheridge v. Shaddock] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130909193245/http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/0/doc/174958/Electronic.aspx |date=2013-09-09 }}'' (PDF), 288 Ark. 481, 706 S.W.2d 395 (1986).</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}}<ref>In addition to statute, see ''In re Mortenson's Estate, 83 Ariz. 87, 316 P.2d 1106 (1957)''</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}}<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thespruce.com/cousin-marriage-laws-listed-by-state-2300731|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302080358/www.thespruce.com/cousin-marriage-laws-listed-by-state-2300731|archive-date=2021-03-02|title=What Are the Cousin Marriage Laws in Your State?|author=Sheri Stritof|website=theSpruce.com}}</ref> | {{Yes}} |- | Arkansas<ref>A.C.A. § 9-11-106 (2010)</ref><ref>A.C.A. § 9-11-107 (2010)</ref><ref>A.C.A. § 5-26-202 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}}<ref>See ''[http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest%20Statutes%202013.pdf Incest Statutes 2013] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150119095351/http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest%20Statutes%202013.pdf |date=2015-01-19 }}'' (PDF).</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | California<ref>Cal Fam Code § 2200 (2010)</ref><ref>Cal Pen Code § 285 (2010)</ref><ref>Estate of Levie (1975, Cal App 1st Dist) was a California case on a purported first-cousin marriage contracted in Nevada. It found the marriage void per the usual rule.</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Colorado<ref>C.R.S. 14-2-110 (2010)</ref><ref>C.R.S. 18-6-301 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Connecticut<ref>Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-21 (2010)</ref><ref>Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-191 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Delaware<ref>13 Del. C. § 101 (2010)</ref><ref>13 Del. C. § 102 (2010)</ref><ref>13 Del. C. § 104 (2010)</ref><ref>11 Del. C. § 766 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | District of Columbia<ref>D.C. Code § 46-401.01 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Florida<ref>Fla. Stat. § 741.21 (2010)</ref><ref>Fla. Stat. § 826.04 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Maybe}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Georgia<ref>O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3 (2010)</ref><ref>O.C.G.A. § 16-6-22 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Hawaii<ref>HRS § 572-1 (2010)</ref><ref>HRS § 707-741 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Idaho<ref>Idaho Code § 32-205 (2010)</ref><ref>Idaho Code § 32-206 (2010)</ref><ref>Idaho Code § 32-209 (2010)</ref><ref>Idaho Code § 32-501 (2010)</ref><ref>Idaho Code § 18-6602 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Illinois<ref>§ 750 ILCS 5/212 (2010)</ref><ref>§ 750 ILCS 5/213 (2010)</ref><ref>§ 750 ILCS 5/216 (2010)</ref><ref>750 ILCS 5/301 (2010)</ref><ref>720 ILCS 5/11-11 (2010)</ref><ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2005281474047717299&q=In+re+Estate+of+Mary+Kathrein&hl=en&as_sdt=8000000002 ''In re Estate of Mary Kathrein''] was an Illinois Supreme Court case ruling that first cousins once removed are not to be confused with first cousins.</ref> | {{Maybe|Only if both parties are 50 or older, or one is infertile}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}}<ref>In addition to statute, see ''Meisenhelder v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 170 Minn. 317, 213 N.W. 32 (1927)''</ref> | {{Unknown}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}}<ref>See ''In re Flores, 96 Ill. App. 3d 279, 51 Ill. Dec. 885, 421 N.E.2d 393 (1 Dist. 1981)''</ref> | {{Unknown}} |- | Indiana<ref>Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-2 (2010)</ref><ref>Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-8-3 (2010)</ref><ref>Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-8-6 (2010). Note that the laws listed do ''not'' pertain to cousin marriage.</ref><ref>Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-46-1-3 (2010)</ref> | {{Maybe|Only if both parties are 65 or older}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}}<ref>See Mason v. Mason, 775 N.E.2d 706, 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 1605 (2002).</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Iowa<ref>Chapter 595.19 Void Marriages</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Kansas<ref>K.S.A. § 23-102 (2009)</ref><ref>K.S.A. § 23-115 (2009)</ref><ref>K.S.A. § 21-3602 (2009)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}}<ref>Moore, A Defense of First-Cousin Marriage, 10 Cleveland Marshall L. Rev. 136 (1961)</ref> | {{No}}<ref>See ''In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584'', where a foreign first cousin marriage was recognised in Kansas.</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Kentucky<ref>[[Kentucky Revised Statutes]] § 402.010 (2010)</ref><ref>KRS § 402.040 (2010)</ref><ref>KRS § 402.990 (2010)</ref><ref>KRS § 530.020 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}}<ref>Class B misdemeanour if marriage entered into; Class A misdemeanour if the couple cohabits after being convicted of entering into a prohibited marriage.</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}}<ref>A marriage between first cousins will not be recognised in Kentucky even if it is consummated in another state. OAG 71-78.</ref> | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Louisiana<ref>La. C.C. Art. 90 (2010)</ref><ref>La. C.C. Art. 94 (2010)</ref><ref>La. R.S. 14:78 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}}<ref>See Ghassemi v. Ghassemi</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{Maybe|If judicial approval in writing is obtained}} |- | Maine<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/maine/index.shtml|title = You searched for united_states/Maine/Index » U.S. Marriage License Laws}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx|title=Human Services Legislation and Legislative News from NCSL|website=www.ncsl.org}}</ref> | {{Maybe|Proof of [[genetic counseling]] from a [[genetic counselor]]}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Yes}} |- | Maryland<ref>Md. FAMILY LAW Code Ann. § 2-202 (2010)</ref><ref>Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 3-323 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Massachusetts<ref>ALM GL ch. 207, § 1 (2010)</ref><ref>ALM GL ch. 207, § 2 (2010)</ref><ref>ALM GL ch. 272, § 17 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Michigan | {{No}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/michigan/index.shtml |title=Michigan Marriage License Laws &gt; MI Wedding Officiants |access-date=10 February 2013}}</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}}<ref>See ''In re Miller's Estate, 239 Mich. 455, 214 N.W. 428 (1927)''</ref> | {{No}}<ref>In addition to statute and preceding reference, see ''Toth v Toth (1973) 50 Mich App 150, 212 NW2d 812''.</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Minnesota<ref>Minn. Stat. § 517.03 (2009)</ref><ref>Minn. Stat. § 518.01 (2009)</ref><ref>Minn. Stat. § 609.365 (2009)</ref> | {{Maybe|Only certain types}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Mississippi<ref>Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-1 (2010)</ref><ref>Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-3 (2010)</ref><ref>Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-29 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Yes}} |- | Missouri<ref>§ 451.020 R.S.Mo. (2010)</ref><ref>§ 568.020 R.S.Mo. (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Montana<ref>Mont. Code Anno., § 40-1-104 (2010)</ref><ref>Mont. Code Anno., § 40-1-401 (2010)</ref><ref>Mont. Code Anno., § 45-5-507 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Nebraska<ref>R.R.S. Neb. § 42-103 (2010)</ref><ref>R.R.S. Neb. § 42-117 (2010)</ref><ref>R.R.S. Neb. § 28-702 (2010)</ref><ref>R.R.S. Neb. § 28-703 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Nevada<ref>Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 125.290 (2010)</ref><ref>Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 201.180 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} |- | New Hampshire<ref>RSA 457:2 (2010)</ref><ref>RSA 457:3 (2010)</ref><ref>RSA 639:2 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}}<ref>Prohibition of marriages between first cousins is applicable where the persons to be married are related only by adoption. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. 46. (New Hampshire)</ref> |- | New Jersey<ref>N.J. Stat. § 37:1-1 (2010)</ref><ref>N.J. Stat. § 2C:14-2 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | New Mexico<ref>N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-1-7 (2010)</ref><ref>N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-10-3 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | New York<ref>[https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/domestic-relations-law/dom-sect-5.html NY CLS Dom Rel § 5] (2010)</ref><ref>[https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-255-25.html NY CLS Penal § 255.25] (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | North Carolina<ref>N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-3 (2010)</ref><ref>N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-178 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes|Yes, except in the rare case of double first cousins}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes|Yes, but cannot be declared void after all of cohabitation, birth of issue, and death of one of the parties has occurred}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | North Dakota<ref>N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-03 (2010)</ref><ref>N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-08 (2010)</ref><ref>N.D. Cent. Code, § 12.1-20-11 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Ohio<ref>ORC Ann. 3101.01 (2010)</ref><ref>ORC Ann. 3105.31 (2010)</ref><ref>ORC Ann. 2907.03 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Oklahoma<ref>43 Okl. St. § 2 (2010)</ref><ref>21 Okl. St. § 885 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Oregon<ref>ORS § 106.020 (2009)</ref><ref>ORS § 163.525 (2009)</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Marriage in Oregon | website=Oregon State Bar| url=http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1131_Marriage.htm | access-date=2021-10-31}}</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}}<ref>See ''Leefield v. Leefield, (1917) 85 Or 287, 166 P 953.''</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Pennsylvania<ref>23 Pa.C.S. § 1304 (2010)</ref><ref>23 Pa.C.S. § 3304 (2010)</ref><ref>18 Pa.C.S. § 4302 (2010)</ref> | {{yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Rhode Island<ref>R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-1 (2010)</ref><ref>R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-2 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | South Carolina<ref>S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-10 (2009)</ref><ref>S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-20 (2009)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | South Dakota<ref>S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-6 (2010)</ref><ref>S.D. Codified Laws § 22-22A-2 (2010)</ref><ref>S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-38 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}}<ref>See ''Garcia v. Garcia, 25 S.D. 645, 127 N.W. 586 (1910)''</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Tennessee<ref>Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-101 (2010)</ref><ref>Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-302 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Texas<ref>Tex. Fam. Code § 2.004 (2010)</ref><ref>Texas Family Code, Title 1, Chapter 6, Subtitle B</ref><ref>Tex. Fam. Code § 6.201 (2010)</ref><ref>Tex. Penal Code § 25.02 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} |- | Utah<ref>Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-1 (2010)</ref><ref>Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4 (2010)</ref><ref>Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-102 (2010)</ref> | {{Maybe|Only if both parties are 65 or older, or both are 55 or older with a district court finding of infertility of either party}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} |- | Vermont<ref>15 V.S.A. § 1a (2010)</ref><ref>13 V.S.A. § 205 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Virginia<ref>Va. Code Ann. § 20-38.1 (2010)</ref><ref>Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-366 (2010)</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Washington<ref>Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.04.020 (2010)</ref><ref>Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.09.040 (2010)</ref><ref>Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9A.64.020 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}}<ref>While no longer a criminal offence in Washington, prosecutions for sexual relations between cousins had taken place under a former statute. See ''State v. Nakashima, 62 Wash. 686, 114 P. 894 (1911).''</ref> | {{Yes}} | {{No}}<ref>Evasive marriages were held to be void in Washington even though there was no statute specifically making them such. See ''Johnson v. Johnson, 57 Wash. 89, 106 Pac. 500 (1910)''.</ref> | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Unknown}} |- | West Virginia<ref>W. Va. Code § 48-2-302 (2010)</ref><ref>W. Va. Code § 48-2-303 (2010)</ref><ref>W. Va. Code § 48-2-503 (2010)</ref><ref>W. Va. Code § 48-3-103 (2010)</ref><ref>W. Va. Code § 48-2-602 (2010)</ref><ref>W. Va. Code § 61-8-12 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Unknown}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} |- | Wisconsin<ref>Wis. Stat. § 765.03 (2010)</ref><ref>Wis. Stat. § 765.04 (2010)</ref><ref>Wis. Stat. § 765.21 (2010)</ref><ref>Note that marriage abroad to circumvent the laws carries criminal penalties in Wisconsin; see Wis. Stat. § 765.30 (2010)</ref><ref>Wis. Stat. § 944.06 (2010)</ref> | {{Maybe|Only if the woman is at least 55, or either is permanently sterile}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Yes}} | {{Maybe|Only if the woman is at least 55, or either is permanently sterile}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} |- | Wyoming<ref>Wyo. Stat. § 20-1-111 (2010)</ref><ref>Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-101 (2010)</ref><ref>Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-402 (2010)</ref> | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Yes}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{No}} | {{Yes}} | {{Unknown}} | {{Yes}} |- ! State ! First cousin marriage allowed ! Sexual relations or cohabitation allowed ! First-cousin marriages void ! Out-of-state marriages by state's residents void ! All out-of-state marriages void ! Sterility requirement to marry cousin ! First-cousin-once-removed marriage allowed ! Half-cousin marriage allowed ! Adopted-cousin marriage allowed |} ==Incidence== Data on cousin marriage in the United States is sparse. It was estimated in 1960 that 0.2% of all marriages between [[Roman Catholics in the United States|Roman Catholics]] were between first or second cousins, but no more recent nationwide studies have been performed.<ref name=tables>{{cite web|url=http://www.consang.net/index.php/Global_prevalence_tables|title=Global prevalence tables|website=www.consang.net}}</ref> It is unknown what proportion of that number were first cousins, which is the group facing marriage bans. While recent studies have cast serious doubt on whether cousin marriage is as dangerous as is popularly assumed, professors [[Diane B. Paul]] and Hamish G. Spencer speculate that legal bans persist in part due to "the ease with which a handful of highly motivated activists—or even one individual—can be effective in the decentralized American system, especially when feelings do not run high on the other side of an issue."<ref>Paul and Spencer.</ref> ==History== Cousin marriage was legal in all states before the [[American Civil War|Civil War]].<ref>{{cite journal | last=Paul | first=Diane B | last2=Spencer | first2=Hamish G | editor-last=Keller | editor-first=Evelyn Fox | title=“It's Ok, We're Not Cousins by Blood”: The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective | journal=PLoS Biology | publisher=Public Library of Science (PLoS) | volume=6 | issue=12 | date=2008-12-23 | issn=1545-7885 | doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320 | page=e320}}</ref> Anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer argues that marriage prohibitions were introduced to maintain the social order, uphold religious morality, and safeguard the creation of fit offspring.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~omar/|title=Index of /~omar|website=www-personal.ksu.edu}}</ref> Writers such as [[Noah Webster]] (1758–1843) and ministers like [[Philip Milledoler]] (1775–1852) and Joshua McIlvaine helped lay the groundwork for such viewpoints well before 1860. This led to a gradual shift in concern from affinal unions, like those between a man and his deceased wife's sister, to [[Consanguinity|consanguineous]] unions. By the 1870s, [[Lewis H. Morgan|Lewis Henry Morgan]] (1818–1881) was writing about "the advantages of marriages between unrelated persons" and the necessity of avoiding "the evils of consanguine marriage", avoidance of which would "increase the vigor of the stock". To many, Morgan included, cousin marriage, and more specifically [[parallel and cross cousins|parallel-cousin]] marriage was a remnant of a more primitive stage of human social organization.<ref>Ottenheimer. p. 111.</ref> Morgan himself had married his cousin in 1853.<ref name="ottenheimer">{{cite book |title=Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage |url=https://archive.org/details/forbiddenrelativ00otte |url-access=registration |last=Ottenheimer |first=Martin |year=1996 |publisher=University of Illinois |chapter=Chapter 2}}</ref> In 1846, [[Governor of Massachusetts|Massachusetts Governor]] [[George N. Briggs]] appointed a commission to study mentally handicapped people (termed "[[idiot]]s") in the state. This study implicated cousin marriage as responsible for idiocy. Within the next two decades, numerous reports (e.g., one from the Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum) appeared with similar conclusions: that cousin marriage sometimes resulted in [[deafness]], [[blindness]], and idiocy. Perhaps most important was the report of physician Samuel Merrifield Bemiss<!--- famousamericans.net/samuelmerrifieldbemiss/ ---> for the [[American Medical Association]], which concluded cousin inbreeding does lead to the "physical and mental deprivation of the offspring". Despite being contradicted by other studies like those of [[George Darwin]] and Alan Huth in England and Robert Newman in New York, the report's conclusions were widely accepted.<ref name="ottenheimer2"> {{cite book |title=Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage |url=https://archive.org/details/forbiddenrelativ00otte |url-access=registration |last=Ottenheimer |first=Martin |year=1996 |publisher=University of Illinois |chapter=Chapter 3}}</ref> These developments led to thirteen states and territories passing cousin marriage prohibitions by the 1880s. Though contemporaneous, the [[eugenics]] movement did not play much of a direct role in the bans. George Louis Arner in 1908 considered the ban a clumsy and ineffective method of eugenics, which he thought would eventually be replaced by more refined techniques. By the 1920s, the number of bans had doubled.<ref name="okbyscience">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/cousinmarriage/|title=Cousin Marriage OK by Science|magazine=Wired|author=Brandon Keim|date=23 December 2008}}</ref> Since that time, Kentucky (1943) and Texas have banned first-cousin marriage and since 1985, Maine has mandated genetic counseling for marrying cousins to minimise risk to any serious health defect to their children. The [[National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws]] unanimously recommended in 1970 that all such laws should be repealed, but no state has dropped its prohibition.<ref name="plos">{{cite journal|last1=Paul|first1=Diane B.|last2=Spencer|first2=Hamish G.|date=23 December 2008|title="It's Ok, We're Not Cousins by Blood": The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective|journal=PLOS Biology|volume=6|issue=12|pages=2627–30|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320|pmid=19108607|pmc=2605922}}</ref><ref name="kissyourcousin">{{Cite web|url=https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/go-ahead-kiss-your-cousin|title=Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin|website=Discover Magazine}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceA">[[Cousin marriage#Consanguinity|Bittles and Black 2009]], Section 2</ref> ==Proposed changes== A bill to repeal the ban on first-cousin marriage in [[Minnesota]] was introduced by [[Phyllis Kahn]] in 2003, but it died in committee. Republican Minority Leader [[Marty Seifert]] criticized the bill in response, saying it would "turn us into a cold Arkansas".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.tpt.org/aatc/2009/06/25/quotes_for_inspiration|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090906043319/http://www.tpt.org/aatc/2009/06/25/quotes_for_inspiration|url-status=dead|title=TPT St. Paul. "Quotes for Inspiration." June 25, 2009.|archivedate=September 6, 2009}}</ref> According to the [[University of Minnesota]]'s ''The Wake'', Kahn was aware the bill had little chance of passing but introduced it anyway to draw attention to the issue. She reportedly got the idea after learning that cousin marriage is an acceptable form of marriage among some cultural groups that have a strong presence in Minnesota, namely the [[Hmong people|Hmong]] and [[Somali people|Somali]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wakemag.org/archive/20050125.pdf|title=''The Wake''. Vol. 3, Issue 8|access-date=2019-05-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717015436/http://www.wakemag.org/archive/20050125.pdf|archive-date=2011-07-17|url-status=dead}}</ref> In contrast, [[Maryland]] delegates [[Henry B. Heller]] and [[Kumar P. Barve]] sponsored a bill to ban first-cousin marriages in 2000.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/hb0459.htm|title=BILL INFO-2000 Regular Session-HB 459|website=mlis.state.md.us}}</ref> It got further than Kahn's bill, passing the House of Delegates by 82 to 46 despite most Republicans voting no, but finally died in the state senate. In response to the 2005 marriage of Pennsylvanian first cousins Eleanor Amrhein and Donald W. Andrews Sr. in Maryland, Heller said that he might resurrect the bill because such marriages are "like playing genetic roulette".<ref name=infamily>{{cite web|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_12_05_SC.html|title=Steve Chapman. "Keeping Marriage in the Family."}}</ref> Texas did pass a ban on first-cousin marriage the same year as Amrhein and Andrews married, evidently in reaction to the presence of the polygamous [[Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] (FLDS). Texas Representative [[Harvey Hilderbran]], whose district includes the main FLDS compound, authored an amendment<ref>C.S.H.B. 3006. Texas Legislature 79(R).</ref> to a child protection statute to both discourage the FLDS from settling in Texas and to "prevent Texas from succumbing to the practices of taking child brides, incest, welfare abuse, and domestic violence".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.houstonpress.com/2006-04-27/news/big-love-texas-style/3|title=Big Love, Texas-Style|first=Keith|last=Plocek|date=27 April 2006}}</ref> While Hilderbran stated that he would not have authored a bill solely to ban first-cousin marriage, he also said in an interview, "Cousins don't get married just like siblings don't get married. And when it happens you have a bad result. It's just not the accepted normal thing."<ref name="kershaw">{{cite news |first = Sarah |last = Kershaw |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/garden/26cousins.html |title = Shaking Off the Shame| work=The New York Times | date = 26 November 2009 |url-status = live |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200225182743/https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/garden/26cousins.html |archive-date = February 25, 2020}}</ref> Some news sources then only mentioned the polygamy and child abuse provisions and ignored the cousin marriage portion of the bill, as did some more recent sources.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/stories/031905dntexpoly.6c7a9.html|title=Bill takes aim at polygamists|website=www.dentonrc.com}}{{Dead link|date=November 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_6040bdca-3b34-575f-ad3a-04043c269295.html|title=Lawmaker files bill raising age of marriage consent|first=NATALIE GOTT Associated Press|last=Writer}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/nov/07/all-eyes-still-on-jessop-for-now/|title=Trish Choate. "FLDS TRIAL: All eyes still on Jessop, for now|work= St. Angelo Standard-Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/13/0413eldorado.html|title=85th Texas Legislature: News, issues, commentary & more}}</ref> The new statute made sex with an adult first cousin a more serious felony than with adult members of one's immediate family. However, this statute was amended in 2009; while sex with close adult family members (including first cousins) remains a felony, the more serious penalty now attaches to sex with an individual's direct ancestor or descendant.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.25.htm#25.02|title=PENAL CODE CHAPTER 25. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY|website=www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us}}</ref> The U.S. state of [[Maine]] allows first-cousin marriage if the couple agrees to have [[genetic counseling]], while [[North Carolina]] allows it so long as the applicants for marriage are not rare [[double first cousin]]s, meaning cousins through both parental lines.<ref>N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51–3 (West 2009).</ref> In the other 25 states permitting at least some first-cousin marriage, double cousins are not distinguished.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx |publisher=National Conference of State Legislatures |title=State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins |access-date=10 September 2013}}</ref> States have various laws regarding marriage between cousins and other close relatives,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150208045946/www.cousincouples.com/?page=states|archive-date=2015-02-08|title=US State Laws|website=CousinCouples.com}}</ref> which involve factors including whether or not the parties to the marriage are half-cousins, double cousins, infertile, over 65, or whether it is a tradition prevalent in a native or ancestry culture, adoption status, in-law, whether or not genetic counselling is required, and whether it is permitted to marry a first cousin once removed. ==See also== * [[Cousin marriage court cases in the United States]] * [[Laws regarding incest in the United States]] ==References== {{Reflist}} {{Incest}} [[Category:Marriage law in the United States]] [[Category:Lists of United States legislation]] [[Category:States of the United States law-related lists]] [[Category:Cousin marriage|Marriage law in the United States]]'