re: Respect for Marriage Act passed by Senate. Goes to House for final vote.

quote:

---

I'm no lawyer and I no longer liver in Texas, but my understanding is Texas not only won't marry 1st cousins,

---

Not something I give much thought (never had first cousins come to me, seeking a divorce or annulment), but it was not prohibited back in the Stone Age when I took the Bar. I looked it up earlier ITT and found the following:

quote:

---

According to the NCSL, cousin marriage is legal in: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia.

---

LINK

Because you asked a follow-up about Texas in particular, I did some additional research specific to Texas. It is actually interesting.

The above referenced article was accurate when it was written. Subsequently, Texas appears to have changed the law to prohibit the clerk from issuing a license to first cousins, but first cousins are still not listed under the “void marriage” statute. Tex Fam Code 6.201.

What does that mean? Honestly, I do not know. It looks like the question is more complex than one would think. If you lie on your marriage license application about being cousins, and the application is issued, can the marriage be voided on the basis of consanguinity? Apparently not, because the cousin marriage was not void ab initio under 6.201, unlike siblings or aunt/uncle. It could not be voided based upon “fraud,“ because both parties would obviously have been aware that they were first cousins and that they were making a false statement. Maybe it is a question of being easier to seek forgiveness than permission. LoL

It would seem that a cousin couple could avoid the licensing complication by simply living together as husband and wife, constituting a statutory informal marriage under 2.401 Texas family code. Voila, they are married. If I were advising such a couple, I would tell them NOT to file a declaration of statutory informal marriage, because that form does require a declaration that they are not cousins. Instead, I would have them publish something in the newspaper announcing their marriage, which would essentially constitute conclusive proof of the existence of the informal (“common law”) marriage.

As to sexual intercourse, first cousin fricking does seem to be prohibited by Tex Penal Code 25.02(a)(6). But does that prohibition apply to a cousin-couple that somehow managed to get married? Pragmatically, is any jury going to convict two people for having sexual intercourse, when they are legally married in the state? Interesting questions, and I do not know the answer.

Interesting article about the constitutionality of cousin, marriage, from 2021 Cardozo review

quote:

---

You are starting to get all over the place. Squid responded to you when you said “it’s a constitutionally protected right…”. Later you try to back track and say “I never said it was in the Constitution”. You are squirming around like a 1L refusing to take an L

I’ll paraphrase Draggy on this one. If you are going to float out what someone other than yourself believes, you should cite it.

Nevertheless and more to the point of where NC was tossing you around…Lawrence could be in danger based on Thomas dicta. Thus, trying to show a Constitutional right based on a theory of privacy is at issue. It also explains why Congress is codifying these rights that previous Courts have held were Constitutional.

---

I will break it down for you.
1. The people can have a protected right that is not listed specifically in the Constitution. I have already posted what James Madison has said on that subject and it is also clearly stated in the 10th Amendment.
2. Marriage is not listed specifically in the Constitution, but I believe it is a fundamental right to marry.
3. Here is part of Robert's dissent in Obergefell. "The right to marry, although not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, has long been held as protected as a fundamental right".

quote:

---

The overarching point is that marriage laws are of state origin (not federal), have variance

---

\\Bingo.

Its not in legalese so he'll not understand.

quote:

---

Ironically, most of the states associated with kindred marriage jokes actually have laws against it.

---

I always liked the one where if an Arkansas couple get a divorce are they still brother and sister?

quote:

---

He essentially slapped Congress across its mouth, and said "Do your damn job! We're no longer going to do it for you."

---

10000% agree with Thomas’ sentiment there.
Pretty much every single issue currently plaguing the United States and our society could be solved by Congress, IF (enormous IF) Congress actually wanted to solve problems.

Immigration, abortion, defense spending, deficit, budget, tax code, social issues. All of it became issues solely because Congress ceded it’s Constitutional authority to the executive branch so they didn’t have to face the music. Perpetual re-election is the only thing Congress cares about.