Cousin marriage law in the United States

Laws regarding first-cousin marriage in the States

  Legal

  Allowed with requirements

  Banned with exceptions

  Statute bans marriage

  Criminal offense

---

Some states recognize marriages performed elsewhere, while other states do not.

The legal status of cousin marriage varies considerably from one U.S. state to another, ranging from being legal in some states to being a criminal offense in others. It is illegal or largely illegal in 31 states and legal or largely legal in 19. However, even in the states where it is legal, the practice is not widespread. (See Incidence.)

Status and territories

Several states of the United States prohibit cousin marriage. ^{[1] [2]} As of February 2014 ^[update] , 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. ^[3] Five states prohibit first-cousin-once-removed marriages. ^[4] Some states prohibiting cousin marriage recognize cousin marriages performed in other states, but despite occasional claims that this holds true in general, ^[5] laws also exist that explicitly void all foreign cousin marriages or marriages conducted by state residents out of state.^{[ citation needed ]}

State by state:

State or territory	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	First-cousin-once-removed marriage allowed	Half-cousin marriage allowed	Adopted-cousin marriage allowed
Alabama [6] [7]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Alaska [8] [9]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Arizona [10] [11] [12]	Only if both parties are 65 or older, or one is infertile	No	Yes	Yes [13]	Yes	Yes	Yes [14]	Yes
Arkansas [15] [16] [17]	No	Yes	Yes	No [18]	No	Yes	Un­known	Un­known
California [19] [20] [21]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Colorado [22] [23]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Connecticut [24] [25]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Delaware [26] [27] [28] [29]	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Un­known	Yes	Un­known	Un­known
Florida [30] [31]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Georgia [32] [33]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Hawaii [34] [35]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Idaho [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]	No	Yes	Un­known	Un­known	Un­known	Yes	Un­known	Un­known
Illinois [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]	Only if both parties are 50 or older, or if one of the parties is infertile. [47]	Yes [47]	No	No [48] [49]	No [50]	Yes [47]	No [51]	Un­known
Indiana [52] [53] [54] [55]	Only if both parties are 65 or older	Yes	Yes	No	No [56]	Yes	Yes	Yes
Iowa [57]	No	Yes	Yes	Un­known	No	Yes	Un­known	Un­known
Kansas [58] [59] [60]	No	Yes	Yes	No [61]	No [62]	Yes	Yes	Un­known
Kentucky [63] [64] [65] [66]	No	No [67]	Yes	Yes [68]	Un­known	No	No	Un­known
Louisiana [69] [70] [71]	No	Yes	Yes	Un­known	No [72]	Yes	No	If judicial approval in writing is obtained
Maine [73] [74]	Proof of genetic counseling from a genetic counselor	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Un­known	Yes
Maryland [75] [76]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Massachusetts [77] [78] [79]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Michigan	No [80]	It is a felony to engage in sexual conduct with a cousin who is mentally disabled, incapable, or incapacitated, physically helpless, or developmentally disabled due to autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or intellectual disability	Yes	No [81]	No [82]	Yes	Un­known	Un­known
Minnesota [83] [84] [85]	Only certain types	Yes	Yes	Un­known	Un­known	Yes	No	Un­known
Mississippi [86] [87] [88]	No	No	Yes	Yes	Un­known	Yes	Un­known	Yes
Missouri [89] [90]	No	Yes	Yes	Un­known	Un­known	Yes	Un­known	Un­known
Montana [91] [92] [93]	No	Yes	Yes	Un­known	Un­known	Yes	Yes	Un­known
Nebraska [94] [95] [96] [97]	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Nevada [98] [99]	No	No	Yes	Un­known	Un­known	No	Yes	Un­known
New Hampshire [100] [101] [102]	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Un­known	No [103]
New Jersey [104] [105]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
New Mexico [106] [107]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
New York [108] [109]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
North Carolina [110] [111]	Yes, except in the rare case of double first cousins	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	Yes	Un­known	Un­known
North Dakota [112] [113] [114]	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Un­known
Ohio [115] [116] [117]	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Un­known	Un­known
Oklahoma [118] [119]	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Un­known
Oregon [120] [121] [122]	No	Yes	Yes	No [123]	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Pennsylvania [124] [125] [126]	No [127]	Yes	Yes	Un­known	Un­known	Yes	Un­known	Un­known
Rhode Island [128] [129]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
South Carolina [130] [131]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
South Dakota [132] [133] [134]	No	No	Yes	No [135]	No	Yes	Yes	Un­known
Tennessee [136] [137]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Texas [138] [139] [140] [141]	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No
Utah [142] [143] [144]	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	No	Un­known	Un­known
Vermont [145] [146]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Virginia [147] [148]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Washington [149] [150] [151]	No	Yes [152]	Yes	No [153]	No	No	No	Un­known
West Virginia [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159]	No	Yes	Un­known	Un­known	Un­known	Yes	No	Yes
Wisconsin [160] [161] [162] [163] [164]	Only if the woman is at least 55, or either is permanently sterile	No	No	No	Un­known	Only if the woman is at least 55, or either is permanently sterile	Yes	Yes
Wyoming [165] [166] [167]	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Un­known	Yes
American Samoa [168]	Yes
District of Columbia [169]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Guam [170]	No
Northern Mariana Islands [171]	Un­known [172]
Puerto Rico [173]	Yes
U.S. Virgin Islands [174]	Yes

Incidence

Data on cousin marriage in the United States are sparse. It was estimated in 1960 that 0.2% of all marriages between Roman Catholics were between first or second cousins, but no more recent nationwide studies have been performed. ^[175] It is unknown what proportion of that number were first cousins, which is the group facing marriage bans.

Some studies ^{[176] [177]} have cast doubt on whether offspring of first cousins are at as significant of a health risk as is popularly assumed. However, 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." ^[178]

History

Cousin marriage was legal in all states before the Civil War. ^[179] Anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer argued that marriage prohibitions were introduced to maintain the social order, uphold religious morality, and safeguard the creation of fit offspring. ^[180] 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 (see widow inheritance), to consanguineous unions. By the 1870s, 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-cousin marriage was a remnant of a more primitive stage of human social organization. ^[181] Morgan himself had married his cousin in 1853. ^[180]

In 1846, Massachusetts Governor George N. Briggs appointed a commission to study mentally handicapped people (at the time termed "idiots") 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 for the American Medical Association, which concluded cousin inbreeding leads to the "physical and mental deprivation of the offspring". Despite being contradicted by other studies like those of George Darwin (himself the result of a cousin marriage) and Alan Huth in England and Robert Newman in New York, the report's conclusions were widely accepted. ^[182]

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 states banning cousin marriage had doubled. ^[183] 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 as of 2008 ^[update] no state had dropped its prohibition. ^{[184] [185] [186]}

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". ^[187] 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 and Somali. ^[188]

In contrast, Maryland delegates Henry B. Heller and Kumar P. Barve sponsored a bill to ban first-cousin marriages in 2000. ^[189] 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". ^[190]

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 ^[191] 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". ^[192] 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." ^[193]

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. ^{[194] [195] [196] [197]} 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. ^[198]

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 cousins, meaning cousins through both parental lines. ^[199] In the other 25 states permitting at least some first-cousin marriage, double cousins are not distinguished. ^[200]

States have various laws regarding marriage between cousins and other close relatives, ^[201] 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

• Avunculate marriage
• Consanguine marriage
• Cousin marriage court cases in the United States
• Laws regarding incest in the United States
• Sibling marriage

References

1. Ottenheimer 1996, p. 90
2. ""Facts About Cousin Marriage."". CousinCouples.com. Archived from the original on 2018-02-04.
3. "The Surprising Truth About Cousins and Marriage". 14 February 2014.
4. Saletan, William (10 April 2002). "The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Surname". Slate.
5. Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why marriage matters: America, equality, and gay people's right to marry . Simon & Schuster. p.  256. ISBN   978-0-7432-6458-7.
6. Code of Alabama Section 30-1-9.1
7. Code of Alabama Section 13A-13-3
8. Alaska Stat. § 25.05.021 (2010)
9. Alaska Stat. § 11.41.450 (2010)
10. A.R.S. § 25-101 (2010)
11. A.R.S. § 25-112 (2010)
12. A.R.S. § 13-3608 (2010)
13. In addition to statute, see In re Mortenson's Estate, 83 Ariz. 87, 316 P.2d 1106 (1957)
14. Sheri Stritof. "What Are the Cousin Marriage Laws in Your State?". theSpruce.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-02.
15. A.C.A. § 9-11-106 (2010)
16. A.C.A. § 9-11-107 (2010)
17. A.C.A. § 5-26-202 (2010)
18. See Incest Statutes 2013 Archived 2015-01-19 at the Wayback Machine (PDF).
19. Cal Fam Code § 2200 (2010)
20. Cal Pen Code § 285 (2010)
21. 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.
22. C.R.S. 14–2-110 (2010)
23. C.R.S. 18–6-301 (2010)
24. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-21 (2010)
25. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-191 (2010)
26. 13 Del. C. § 101 (2010)
27. 13 Del. C. § 102 (2010)
28. 13 Del. C. § 104 (2010)
29. 11 Del. C. § 766 (2010)
30. Fla. Stat. § 741.21 (2010)
31. Fla. Stat. § 826.04 (2010)
32. O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3 (2010)
33. O.C.G.A. § 16-6-22 (2010)
34. HRS § 572-1 (2010)
35. HRS § 707-741 (2010)
36. Idaho Code § 32-205 (2010)
37. Idaho Code § 32-206 (2010)
38. Idaho Code § 32-209 (2010)
39. Idaho Code § 32-501 (2010)
40. Idaho Code § 18-6602 (2010)
41. § 750 ILCS 5/212 (2010)
42. § 750 ILCS 5/213 (2010)
43. § 750 ILCS 5/216 (2010)
44. 750 ILCS 5/301 (2010)
45. 720 ILCS 5/11-11 (2010)
46. In re Estate of Mary Kathrein was an Illinois Supreme Court case distinguishing between first cousins once removed and first cousins.
47. "Kissing Cousins: The States Where Marrying Your Relative Is Legal". insideedition.com. Retrieved 2023-12-22.
48. HB 1591 (2003) amended the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act by repealing all of the following provisions: (i) no marriage shall be contracted in this State by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another state or jurisdiction if the marriage would be void if contracted in the other state or jurisdiction, and every marriage celebrated in this State in violation of that provision is null and void; (ii) before issuing a license to marry a person who resides and intends to continue to reside in another state, the officer having authority to issue the license shall satisfy himself by requiring affidavits or otherwise that the person is not prohibited from intermarrying by the laws of the jurisdiction where the person resides; and (iii) an official issuing a marriage license with knowledge that the parties are prohibited from marrying and a person authorized to solemnize marriages who knowingly solemnizes such a marriage are guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.
49. In addition to statute, see Meisenhelder v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 170 Minn. 317, 213 N.W. 32 (1927)
50. "MARRIAGE-PROHIBITIONS-REPEAL".
51. See In re Flores, 96 Ill. App. 3d 279, 51 Ill. Dec. 885, 421 N.E.2d 393 (1 Dist. 1981)
52. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-2 (2010)
53. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-8-3 (2010)
54. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-8-6 (2010). Note that the laws listed do not pertain to cousin marriage.
55. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-46-1-3 (2010)
56. See Mason v. Mason, 775 N.E.2d 706, 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 1605 (2002).
57. Chapter 595.19 Void Marriages
58. K.S.A. § 23-102 (2009)
59. K.S.A. § 23-115 (2009)
60. K.S.A. § 21-3602 (2009)
61. Moore, A Defense of First-Cousin Marriage, 10 Cleveland Marshall L. Rev. 136 (1961)
62. See In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, where a foreign first cousin marriage was recognised in Kansas.
63. Kentucky Revised Statutes § 402.010 (2010)
64. KRS § 402.040 (2010)
65. KRS § 402.990 (2010)
66. KRS § 530.020 (2010)
67. Class B misdemeanour if marriage entered into; Class A misdemeanour if the couple cohabits after being convicted of entering into a prohibited marriage.
68. A marriage between first cousins will not be recognised in Kentucky even if it is consummated in another state. OAG 71-78.
69. La. Civ. Code art. 90 (2004)
70. La. Civ. Code art. 94 (1988)
71. La. Rev. Stat. 14:89 (2018)
72. See Ghassemi v. Ghassemi
73. "You searched for united_states/Maine/Index » U.S. Marriage License Laws".
74. "Human Services Legislation and Legislative News from NCSL". www.ncsl.org.
75. Md. FAMILY LAW Code Ann. § 2-202 (2010)
76. Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 3-323 (2010)
77. ALM GL ch. 207, § 1 (2010)
78. ALM GL ch. 207, § 2 (2010)
79. ALM GL ch. 272, § 17 (2010)
80. "Michigan Marriage License Laws > MI Wedding Officiants" . Retrieved 10 February 2013.
81. See In re Miller's Estate, 239 Mich. 455, 214 N.W. 428 (1927)
82. In addition to statute and preceding reference, see Toth v Toth (1973) 50 Mich App 150, 212 NW2d 812.
83. Minn. Stat. § 517.03 (2009)
84. Minn. Stat. § 518.01 (2009)
85. Minn. Stat. § 609.365 (2009)
86. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-1 (2010)
87. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-3 (2010)
88. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-29 (2010)
89. § 451.020 R.S.Mo. (2010)
90. § 568.020 R.S.Mo. (2010)
91. Mont. Code Anno., § 40-1-104 (2010)
92. Mont. Code Anno., § 40-1-401 (2010)
93. Mont. Code Anno., § 45-5-507 (2010)
94. R.R.S. Neb. § 42-103 (2010)
95. R.R.S. Neb. § 42-117 (2010)
96. R.R.S. Neb. § 28-702 (2010)
97. R.R.S. Neb. § 28-703 (2010)
98. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 125.290 (2010)
99. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 201.180 (2010)
100. RSA 457:2 (2010)
101. RSA 457:3 (2010)
102. RSA 639:2 (2010)
103. 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)
104. N.J. Stat. § 37:1-1 (2010)
105. N.J. Stat. § 2C:14-2 (2010)
106. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-1-7 (2010)
107. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-10-3 (2010)
108. NY CLS Dom Rel § 5 (2010)
109. NY CLS Penal § 255.25 (2010)
110. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-3 (2010)
111. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-178 (2010)
112. N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-03 (2010)
113. N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-08 (2010)
114. N.D. Cent. Code, § 12.1-20-11 (2010)
115. ORC Ann. 3101.01 (2010)
116. ORC Ann. 3105.31 (2010)
117. ORC Ann. 2907.03 (2010)
118. 43 Okl. St. § 2 (2010)
119. 21 Okl. St. § 885 (2010)
120. ORS § 106.020 (2009)
121. ORS § 163.525 (2009)
122. "Marriage in Oregon". Oregon State Bar. Retrieved 2021-10-31.
123. See Leefield v. Leefield, (1917) 85 Or 287, 166 P 953.
124. 23 Pa.C.S. § 1304 (2010)
125. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3304 (2010)
126. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4302 (2010)
127. 23 Pa.C.S. § 1304 (2010)
128. R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-1 (2010)
129. R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-2 (2010)
130. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-10 (2009)
131. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-20 (2009)
132. S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-6 (2010)
133. S.D. Codified Laws § 22-22A-2 (2010)
134. S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-38 (2010)
135. See Garcia v. Garcia, 25 S.D. 645, 127 N.W. 586 (1910)
136. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-101 (2010)
137. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-302 (2010)
138. Tex. Fam. Code § 2.004 (2010)
139. Texas Family Code, Title 1, Chapter 6, Subtitle B
140. Tex. Fam. Code § 6.201 (2010)
141. Tex. Penal Code § 25.02 (2010)
142. Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-1 (2010)
143. Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4 (2010)
144. Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-102 (2010)
145. 15 V.S.A. § 1a (2010)
146. 13 V.S.A. § 205 (2010)
147. Va. Code Ann. § 20-38.1 (2010)
148. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-366 (2010)
149. Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.04.020 (2010)
150. Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.09.040 (2010)
151. Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9A.64.020 (2010)
152. 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).
153. 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).
154. W. Va. Code § 48-2-302 (2010)
155. W. Va. Code § 48-2-303 (2010)
156. W. Va. Code § 48-2-503 (2010)
157. W. Va. Code § 48-3-103 (2010)
158. W. Va. Code § 48-2-602 (2010)
159. W. Va. Code § 61-8-12 (2010)
160. Wis. Stat. § 765.03 (2010)
161. Wis. Stat. § 765.04 (2010)
162. Wis. Stat. § 765.21 (2010)
163. Note that marriage abroad to circumvent the laws carries criminal penalties in Wisconsin; see Wis. Stat. § 765.30 (2010)
164. Wis. Stat. § 944.06 (2010)
165. Wyo. Stat. § 20-1-111 (2010)
166. Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-101 (2010)
167. Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-402 (2010)
168. American Samoa Code Annotated 42.0101
169. D.C. Code § 46-401.01 (2010)
170. Guam Code Annotated §3202
171. Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Code 1205
172. Marriages "solemnized in accordance with recognized customs, shall be valid."
173. New Civil Code Book 2: Title III: Ch I: Sec I: Article 380
174. Virgin Islands Annotated Code :: 16 V.I.C. § 1. Void marriages
175. "Global prevalence tables". www.consang.net. Archived from the original on 2017-01-14. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
176. Grady, Denise (3 April 2002). "No Genetic Reason to Discourage Cousin Marriage, Study Finds". The New York Times .
177. "NESCent: The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center".
178. Paul and Spencer.
179. Paul, Diane B; Spencer, Hamish G (2008-12-23). Keller, Evelyn Fox (ed.). ""It's Ok, We're Not Cousins by Blood": The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective". PLOS Biology. 6 (12). Public Library of Science (PLoS): 2627–2630. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320 . ISSN   1545-7885. PMC   2605922 . PMID   19108607.
180. Ottenheimer, Martin (1996). "Chapter 2". Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage . University of Illinois.
181. Ottenheimer. p. 111.
182. Ottenheimer, Martin (1996). "Chapter 3". Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage . University of Illinois.
183. Brandon Keim (23 December 2008). "Cousin Marriage OK by Science". Wired.
184. Paul, Diane B.; Spencer, Hamish G. (23 December 2008). ""It's Ok, We're Not Cousins by Blood": The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective". PLOS Biology. 6 (12): 2627–30. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320 . PMC   2605922 . PMID   19108607.
185. "Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin". Discover Magazine.
186. Bittles and Black 2009, Section 2
187. "TPT St. Paul. "Quotes for Inspiration." June 25, 2009". Archived from the original on September 6, 2009.
188. "The Wake. Vol. 3, Issue 8" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
189. "BILL INFO-2000 Regular Session-HB 459". mlis.state.md.us.
190. "Steve Chapman. "Keeping Marriage in the Family."".
191. C.S.H.B. 3006. Texas Legislature 79(R).
192. Plocek, Keith (27 April 2006). "Big Love, Texas-Style".
193. Kershaw, Sarah (26 November 2009). "Shaking Off the Shame". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 25, 2020.
194. "Bill takes aim at polygamists". www.dentonrc.com.^{[ permanent dead link ]}
195. Writer, NATALIE GOTT Associated Press (14 April 2005). "Lawmaker files bill raising age of marriage consent".
196. "Trish Choate. "FLDS TRIAL: All eyes still on Jessop, for now". St. Angelo Standard-Times. Archived from the original on 2012-03-04. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
197. "85th Texas Legislature: News, issues, commentary & more". Archived from the original on 2008-11-23. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
198. "PENAL CODE CHAPTER 25. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY". www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us.
199. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51–3 (West 2009).
200. "State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins". National Conference of State Legislatures. Archived from the original on 27 August 2013. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
201. "US State Laws". CousinCouples.com. Archived from the original on 2015-02-08.