Cousin marriage law in the United States

Cousin marriage laws in the United States vary considerably from one state to another, ranging from cousin marriages 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.)

Laws regarding first-cousin marriage in the United States
  First-cousin marriage is legal
  Allowed with requirements or exceptions
  Banned with exceptions1
  Statute bans first-cousin marriage1
  Criminal offense1
1 Some states recognize marriages performed elsewhere, while other states do not.

Current position

Several states of the United States prohibit cousin marriage.[1][2] As of February 2014, 24 U.S. states prohibit marriages between first cousins, 19 U.S. states allow marriages between first cousins, and 7 U.S. states allow only some marriages between first cousins.[3] Seven 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.

Summary
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[6] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Alaska[7][8] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Arizona[9][10][11] Only if both parties are 65 or older, or one is infertile No[12] Yes Yes[13] Yes Yes Yes Yes[14] Yes
Arkansas[15][16][17] No Yes Yes No[18] No No Yes Unknown Unknown
California[19][20][21] No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes
Colorado[22][23] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Connecticut[24][25] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Delaware[26][27][28][29] No Yes Yes Yes Unknown No Yes Unknown Unknown
District of Columbia[30] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Florida[31][32] Yes Yes No No No No Maybe Yes Yes
Georgia[33][34] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Hawaii[35][36] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Idaho[37][38][39][40][41] No Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown No Yes Unknown Unknown
Illinois[42][43][44][45][46][47] Only if both parties are 50 or older, or one is infertile Yes Yes Yes[48] Unknown Yes Yes No[49] Unknown
Indiana[50][51][52][53] Only if both parties are 65 or older Yes Yes No No[54] No Yes Yes Yes
Iowa[55] No Yes Yes Unknown No No Yes Unknown Unknown
Kansas[56][57][58] No Yes Yes No[59] No[60] No Yes Yes Unknown
Kentucky[61][62][63][64] No No[65] Yes Yes[66] Unknown No No No Unknown
Louisiana[67][68][69] No Yes Yes Unknown No[70] No Yes No If judicial approval in writing is obtained
Maine[71][72] Proof of genetic counseling from a genetic counselor Yes No No No No Yes Unknown Yes
Maryland[73][74] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Massachusetts[75][76][77] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Michigan No[78] Yes Yes No[79] No[80] No Yes Unknown Unknown
Minnesota[81][82][83] Only certain types Yes Yes Unknown Unknown No Yes No Unknown
Mississippi[84][85][86] No No Yes Yes Unknown No Yes Unknown Yes
Missouri[87][88] No Yes Yes Unknown Unknown No Yes Unknown Unknown
Montana[89][90][91] No Yes Yes Unknown Unknown No Yes Yes Unknown
Nebraska[92][93][94][95] No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes
Nevada[96][97] No No Yes Unknown Unknown No No Yes Unknown
New Hampshire[98][99][100] No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Unknown No[101]
New Jersey[102][103] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
New Mexico[104][105] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
New York[106][107] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
North Carolina[108][109] 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 No Yes Unknown Unknown
North Dakota[110][111][112] No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Unknown
Ohio[113][114][115] No Yes No No No No No Unknown Unknown
Oklahoma[116][117] No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Unknown
Oregon[118][119][120] No Yes Yes No[121] No No Yes Yes Yes
Pennsylvania[122][123][124] No Yes Yes Unknown Unknown No Yes Unknown Unknown
Rhode Island[125][126] Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes
South Carolina[127][128] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
South Dakota[129][130][131] No No Yes No[132] No No Yes Yes Unknown
Tennessee[133][134] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Texas[135][136][137][138] No No No No No No Yes No No
Utah[139][140][141] 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 Yes Unknown Unknown
Vermont[142][143] Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Virginia[144][145] Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes
Washington[146][147][148] No Yes[149] Yes Yes[150] No No No No Unknown
West Virginia[151][152][153][154][155][156] No Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown No Yes No Yes
Wisconsin[157][158][159][160][161] Only if the woman is at least 55, or either is permanently sterile No No No Unknown Yes Only if the woman is at least 55, or either is permanently sterile Yes Yes
Wyoming[162][163][164] 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 were between first or second cousins, but no more recent nationwide studies have been performed.[165] 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."[166]

History

Cousin marriage was legal in all states before the Civil War.[167] Anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer argues that marriage prohibitions were introduced to maintain the social order, uphold religious morality, and safeguard the creation of fit offspring.[168] 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 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.[169] Morgan himself had married his cousin in 1853.[170]

In 1846, Massachusetts Governor George N. Briggs appointed a commission to study mentally handicapped people (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 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.[171]

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.[172] 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.[173][174][175]

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".[176] 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.[177]

In contrast, Maryland delegates Henry B. Heller and Kumar P. Barve sponsored a bill to ban first-cousin marriages in 2000.[178] 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".[179]

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[180] 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".[181] 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."[182] 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.[183][184][185][186] 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.[187]

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.[188] In the other 25 states permitting at least some first-cousin marriage, double cousins are not distinguished.[189]

States have various laws regarding marriage between cousins and other close relatives,[190] 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.

gollark: I do not think search is a significant issue, and the logreading thing can be fixed.
gollark: I mean, you could shunt it to an archive channel via webhook things after however long, but that would have its own issues.
gollark: The precise time is tunable, after some amount of time it would probably cease to be discussed. And why should they *not* exist? The logreading issue is fixable as I said, search... maybe less so, but I'm not sure how many search queries actually turn up that stuff *now* and how big an issue it would be.
gollark: For logreading, it could probably put in a divider of some kind.
gollark: It could be semiautomated based on keywords (or, indeed, the criteria used to decide whether to have a conversation or not under your proposal), and disable it after, say, 15 minutes of no activity.

See also
  • Cousin marriage court cases in the United States
  • Laws regarding incest in the United States

References
  1. Ottenheimer 1996, p. 90
  2. "Facts About Cousin Marriage." Cousin Couples.
  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" – via 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 Ala. § 13A-13-3. Alabama appears to have no law voiding incestuous marriages, although § 30-1-3 does mention incestuous marriages being annulled.
  7. Alaska Stat. § 25.05.021 (2010)
  8. Alaska Stat. § 11.41.450 (2010)
  9. A.R.S. § 25-101 (2010)
  10. A.R.S. § 25-112 (2010)
  11. A.R.S. § 13-3608 (2010)
  12. See Etheridge v. Shaddock Archived 2013-09-09 at the Wayback Machine (PDF), 288 Ark. 481, 706 S.W.2d 395 (1986).
  13. In addition to statute, see In re Mortenson's Estate, 83 Ariz. 87, 316 P.2d 1106 (1957)
  14. https://www.thespruce.com/cousin-marriage-laws-listed-by-state-2300731
  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. D.C. Code § 46-401.01 (2010)
  31. Fla. Stat. § 741.21 (2010)
  32. Fla. Stat. § 826.04 (2010)
  33. O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3 (2010)
  34. O.C.G.A. § 16-6-22 (2010)
  35. HRS § 572-1 (2010)
  36. HRS § 707-741 (2010)
  37. Idaho Code § 32-205 (2010)
  38. Idaho Code § 32-206 (2010)
  39. Idaho Code § 32-209 (2010)
  40. Idaho Code § 32-501 (2010)
  41. Idaho Code § 18-6602 (2010)
  42. § 750 ILCS 5/212 (2010)
  43. § 750 ILCS 5/213 (2010)
  44. § 750 ILCS 5/216 (2010)
  45. 750 ILCS 5/301 (2010)
  46. 720 ILCS 5/11-11 (2010)
  47. 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.
  48. In addition to statute, see Meisenhelder v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 170 Minn. 317, 213 N.W. 32 (1927)
  49. See In re Flores, 96 Ill. App. 3d 279, 51 Ill. Dec. 885, 421 N.E.2d 393 (1 Dist. 1981)
  50. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-2 (2010)
  51. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-8-3 (2010)
  52. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-8-6 (2010). Note that the laws listed do not pertain to cousin marriage.
  53. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-46-1-3 (2010)
  54. See Mason v. Mason, 775 N.E.2d 706, 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 1605 (2002).
  55. Chapter 595.19 Void Marriages
  56. K.S.A. § 23-102 (2009)
  57. K.S.A. § 23-115 (2009)
  58. K.S.A. § 21-3602 (2009)
  59. Moore, A Defense of First-Cousin Marriage, 10 Cleveland Marshall L. Rev. 136 (1961)
  60. See In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, where a foreign first cousin marriage was recognised in Kansas.
  61. Kentucky Revised Statutes § 402.010 (2010)
  62. KRS § 402.040 (2010)
  63. KRS § 402.990 (2010)
  64. KRS § 530.020 (2010)
  65. Class B misdemeanour if marriage entered into; Class A misdemeanour if the couple cohabits after being convicted of entering into a prohibited marriage.
  66. A marriage between first cousins will not be recognised in Kentucky even if it is consummated in another state. OAG 71-78.
  67. La. C.C. Art. 90 (2010)
  68. La. C.C. Art. 94 (2010)
  69. La. R.S. 14:78 (2010)
  70. See Ghassemi v. Ghassemi
  71. http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/maine/index.shtml
  72. http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx
  73. Md. FAMILY LAW Code Ann. § 2-202 (2010)
  74. Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 3-323 (2010)
  75. ALM GL ch. 207, § 1 (2010)
  76. ALM GL ch. 207, § 2 (2010)
  77. ALM GL ch. 272, § 17 (2010)
  78. "Michigan Marriage License Laws > MI Wedding Officiants". Retrieved 10 February 2013.
  79. See In re Miller's Estate, 239 Mich. 455, 214 N.W. 428 (1927)
  80. In addition to statute and preceding reference, see Toth v Toth (1973) 50 Mich App 150, 212 NW2d 812.
  81. Minn. Stat. § 517.03 (2009)
  82. Minn. Stat. § 518.01 (2009)
  83. Minn. Stat. § 609.365 (2009)
  84. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-1 (2010)
  85. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-3 (2010)
  86. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-29 (2010)
  87. § 451.020 R.S.Mo. (2010)
  88. § 568.020 R.S.Mo. (2010)
  89. Mont. Code Anno., § 40-1-104 (2010)
  90. Mont. Code Anno., § 40-1-401 (2010)
  91. Mont. Code Anno., § 45-5-507 (2010)
  92. R.R.S. Neb. § 42-103 (2010)
  93. R.R.S. Neb. § 42-117 (2010)
  94. R.R.S. Neb. § 28-702 (2010)
  95. R.R.S. Neb. § 28-703 (2010)
  96. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 125.290 (2010)
  97. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 201.180 (2010)
  98. RSA 457:2 (2010)
  99. RSA 457:3 (2010)
  100. RSA 639:2 (2010)
  101. 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)
  102. N.J. Stat. § 37:1-1 (2010)
  103. N.J. Stat. § 2C:14-2 (2010)
  104. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-1-7 (2010)
  105. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-10-3 (2010)
  106. NY CLS Dom Rel § 5 (2010)
  107. NY CLS Penal § 255.25 (2010)
  108. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-3 (2010)
  109. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-178 (2010)
  110. N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-03 (2010)
  111. N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-08 (2010)
  112. N.D. Cent. Code, § 12.1-20-11 (2010)
  113. ORC Ann. 3101.01 (2010)
  114. ORC Ann. 3105.31 (2010)
  115. ORC Ann. 2907.03 (2010)
  116. 43 Okl. St. § 2 (2010)
  117. 21 Okl. St. § 885 (2010)
  118. ORS § 106.020 (2009)
  119. ORS § 163.525 (2009)
  120. Oregon State Bar | http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1131_Marriage.htm
  121. See Leefield v. Leefield, (1917) 85 Or 287, 166 P 953.
  122. 23 Pa.C.S. § 1304 (2010)
  123. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3304 (2010)
  124. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4302 (2010)
  125. R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-1 (2010)
  126. R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-2 (2010)
  127. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-10 (2009)
  128. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-20 (2009)
  129. S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-6 (2010)
  130. S.D. Codified Laws § 22-22A-2 (2010)
  131. S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-38 (2010)
  132. See Garcia v. Garcia, 25 S.D. 645, 127 N.W. 586 (1910)
  133. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-101 (2010)
  134. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-302 (2010)
  135. Tex. Fam. Code § 2.004 (2010)
  136. Texas Family Code, Title 1, Chapter 6, Subtitle B
  137. Tex. Fam. Code § 6.201 (2010)
  138. Tex. Penal Code § 25.02 (2010)
  139. Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-1 (2010)
  140. Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4 (2010)
  141. Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-102 (2010)
  142. 15 V.S.A. § 1a (2010)
  143. 13 V.S.A. § 205 (2010)
  144. Va. Code Ann. § 20-38.1 (2010)
  145. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-366 (2010)
  146. Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.04.020 (2010)
  147. Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.09.040 (2010)
  148. Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9A.64.020 (2010)
  149. 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).
  150. 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).
  151. W. Va. Code § 48-2-302 (2010)
  152. W. Va. Code § 48-2-303 (2010)
  153. W. Va. Code § 48-2-503 (2010)
  154. W. Va. Code § 48-3-103 (2010)
  155. W. Va. Code § 48-2-602 (2010)
  156. W. Va. Code § 61-8-12 (2010)
  157. Wis. Stat. § 765.03 (2010)
  158. Wis. Stat. § 765.04 (2010)
  159. Wis. Stat. § 765.21 (2010)
  160. Note that marriage abroad to circumvent the laws carries criminal penalties in Wisconsin; see Wis. Stat. § 765.30 (2010)
  161. Wis. Stat. § 944.06 (2010)
  162. Wyo. Stat. § 20-1-111 (2010)
  163. Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-101 (2010)
  164. Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-402 (2010)
  165. "Global prevalence tables". www.consang.net.
  166. Paul and Spencer.
  167. PLOS Biology, “It's Ok, We're Not Cousins by Blood”: The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective by Paul DB, Spencer HG (2008)
  168. "Index of /~omar". www-personal.ksu.edu.
  169. Ottenheimer. p. 111.
  170. Ottenheimer, Martin (1996). "Chapter 2". Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage. University of Illinois.
  171. Ottenheimer, Martin (1996). "Chapter 3". Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage. University of Illinois.
  172. Brandon Keim (23 December 2008). "Cousin Marriage OK by Science". Wired.
  173. 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.
  174. "Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin - DiscoverMagazine.com".
  175. Bittles and Black 2009, Section 2
  176. TPT St. Paul. "Quotes for Inspiration." June 25, 2009. Archived 6 September 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  177. "The Wake. Vol. 3, Issue 8" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
  178. "BILL INFO-2000 Regular Session-HB 459". mlis.state.md.us.
  179. "Steve Chapman. "Keeping Marriage in the Family."".
  180. C.S.H.B. 3006. Texas Legislature 79(R).
  181. Plocek, Keith (27 April 2006). "Big Love, Texas-Style".
  182. Kershaw, Sarah (26 November 2009). "Shaking Off the Shame". The New York Times.
  183. "Bill takes aim at polygamists". www.dentonrc.com.
  184. Writer, NATALIE GOTT Associated Press. "Lawmaker files bill raising age of marriage consent".
  185. "Trish Choate. "FLDS TRIAL: All eyes still on Jessop, for now". St. Angelo Standard-Times.
  186. "85th Texas Legislature: News, issues, commentary & more".
  187. "PENAL CODE CHAPTER 25. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY". www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us.
  188. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51–3 (West 2009).
  189. "State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
  190. US State Laws, cousincouples.com.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.