Talk:Cousin marriage law in the United States

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Illinois

The chart currently states that first cousins once-removed are not allowed to be married in Illinois, but is that actually correct? Because it looks like based on Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act only first cousin marriages are illegal. See 750 ILCS 5/212 section (4)^[1] Moester101 (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=075000050HPt%2E+II&ActID=2086&ChapterID=59&SeqStart=900000&SeqEnd=3137500

Sources for the map

It seems to me that sources for the map on the main cousin marriage page should go here, hence the retitling. I am going to try to make a list of relevant state laws over the next few days. The two basic relevant types of law are marriage and incest. Under marriage there are details like whether out-of-state marriages are recognized in addition to the main issue of whether in-state marriages are allowed. 贾宝玉 (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table says both "cousin marriages are allowed" and "cousin marriages are void" in Alabama. Seems a contradiction. 2600:1700:BEF0:1BB0:8D64:A5C5:EE6C:1112 (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map is wrong. Alabama shows first cousin marriage illegal in the table, but colored legal on the map.

Legend on chart

Please define specifically what the checks and x's mean on the cousin chart. I assume check means YES and X means NO? Why not just use Y and n instead? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.198.96 (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more readable if some of the columns were defined in reverse of what they are - e.g., so a state where 1st-cousin is allowed in every case would be green across the entire row. dmd (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Agreed! Column headings need to be made consistent by always using 'allowed' and never using 'void', because any 'Yes' automatically gets a green background and any 'No' automatically gets a red background'., which is consistent when using 'allowed' but becomes contradictory when using 'void'. Commenter8 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florida

I do believe that cohabitation by anyone in the State is a misdemeanor.In this sense, the chart is wrong; however, first cousins are not singled out, and in this sense, the chart is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.217.188 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa

Iowa is missing from this list entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.225.180 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still missing as of 6/17/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.232.66 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa is currently included in this list. Commenter8 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon

Oregon is listed as "first cousin marriage allowed", yet also "first cousin marriage voided" and "adopted first cousin marriage not allowed". I assume from casual web research that the first one, "first cousin marrage allowed" is incorrect, but I don't have the legal books in front of me to link to to keep up with the standards of the rest of the cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.27.79 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "sterility requirements to marry" mean?

Just what does "sterility requirements to marry" mean?

For example, the chart says that in Utah that first cousin marriage not allowed, and the map show it as dark red -- but the chart says it does have sterility requirements to marry. tahc ^chat 04:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay marriage?

Now that we have gay marriage in some states, is it necessary to update this article to reflect whether or not same-sex cousins can marry? Vectro (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Vectro: If same-sex cousins were wanting to marry, wouldn't the assumption be that they'd have to live in a state where both cousin marriage is legal, and same-sex marriage is legal? Thus, I would say that a same-sex cousin marriage column is unnecessary. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is, is the set of places where same-sex cousins can marry just the intersection of the set of places where cousins can marry and the set of places where people of the same sex can marry? It may be the case, but I would not assume it; the situation would seem to be analogous in some respects to the marriage of cousins by adoption. Vectro (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the striped states

Shouldn't there be something in the legend of the map to explain what the distinction is for the striped states (Arizona, Utah, and Wisconsin)? __209.179.31.90 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chart colors

Please use colors consistently. Currently, green does not always mean permissiveness. In the first column, green is more permissive (=first cousin marriage is allowed). In the sixth column, red is more permissive (=no sterility requirement to marry cousin).

The usability of the chart would increase if an all-green state would signify a permissive state, and an all-red state would signify a restrictive state.

CapnZapp (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Agreed! Column headings need to be made consistent by always using 'allowed' and never using 'void', because any 'Yes' automatically gets a green background and any 'No' automatically gets a red background', which is consistent when using 'allowed' but becomes contradictory when using 'void'. Commenter8 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image for the proposed changes section?

?

"English: FSIQ (Full Scale IQ) comparisons in respect to the degree of inbreeding.

The results depict the percentage frequency distribution of FSIQ in relation to coefficient of inbreeding. The non-inbred children display high frequency peaks on left side (presenting high FSIQ values) and downturn toward low FSIQ scores. On the other hand, elevated peaks are observed for low FSIQ scores (on right side) with the increase of inbreeding coefficient (F = 0.0156 to 0.125) and flattened toward high FSIQ scores, providing the evidence for inbreeding depression on children FSIQ.

The study was conducted during April 2013 through July 2013 and a total of 408 children (6 to 15 years of age) were selected randomly on a priori basis from five Muslim populations viz., Gujjar and Bakarwal (n = 97), Mughal (n = 72), Malik (n = 86), Syed (n = 65) and Khan (n = 88). The age group of the children selected was 6 to 15 years."

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage is legal and void?

Isn't that a contradictio in terminis or do I misunderstand something? So, does this mean, such marriages have no legal binding, but you are not going to prison if you participate in such a marriage (or should I use the verb "commit"? My English is not enough in this moment.)? Or does it mean that such marriages can be annulled (can undergo annulment)?

(Can they annul marriages from other states or foreign countries as well? Would that have any legal consequences in European countries? Could any state official from Alabama or Arizona request that the marriage of German first cousins, who are living there, be declared void? If that happened, would it still have any consequences for them after leaving that state? Can those officials insist that the marriage of a visiting couple be annulled? Could Arizona officials bring such couples into prison, even if they were just visiting?)

I must admit that for me as a European it seems to be strange or even weird, that marriage or sexual intercourse between uncle and niece, nephew and aunt, first cousins or even in-laws is prohibited by law in many US states. So, this could have caused me not understanding the regulations, too. Universal-Interessierter^de (talk (de)) 18:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan should allow first cousin marriage.

I believe that Michigan should allow first cousin marriage and to let the cousin couples have their own babies. 2600:6C48:697F:6C3B:A5CF:88C:C083:19C4 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article only consider opposite-sex marriage?

This article seems to only consider opposite-sex marriage, since the condition of Wisconsin is “Only if the woman is at least 55, or either is permanently sterile”, but if both are males, then there is no woman, however, since currently same-sex marriage is legal in all states in America, this article should also consider same-sex marriage, there may be states such that opposite-sex first cousin marriage is illegal but same-sex first cousin marriage is legal, since same-sex marriage need not to consider eugenics, just like the marriage with both parties are too old, or one of the parties is infertile. 1.165.247.185 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=075000050HPt%2E+II&ActID=2086&ChapterID=59&SeqStart=900000&SeqEnd=3137500

[1]