The legal status of first-cousin marriage varies considerably from one U.S. state to another, ranging from legality in some states to a criminal offense in others. It is illegal or largely illegal in 32 states and legal or largely legal in 18. However, even in the states where it is legal, the practice is not widespread .

Status and territories Several states of the United States prohibit cousin marriage.Ottenheimer 1996, p. 90Cross Cousins , 25 U.S. states prohibit marriages between first cousins, 18 U.S. states allow marriages between first cousins, and seven U.S. states (Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Utah, Wisconsin) allow only some marriages between first cousins. North Carolina allows first cousin marriage as long as the applicants for marriage are not rare double first cousins, meaning cousins through both parental lines. First cousin marriage is a criminal offense in eight states (Arizona, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin). Six states (Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin) prohibit first-cousin-once-removed marriages. KentuckyMarriage and Divorce Certificates and NevadaIncest And Child Brides In Nevada are the only two states that prohibit marriages between second cousins. New York is the only state that allows avunculate marriage (uncle/aunt-niece/nephew marriage) generally.NY State blesses ‘incest’ marriage between uncle, niece Rhode Island generally prohibits avunculate marriage, but makes an exception for Jewish marriages conducted within the bounds permitted by Jewish religious law. Some states prohibiting cousin marriage recognize cousin marriages performed in other states, but despite occasional claims that this holds true in general, laws also exist that explicitly void all foreign cousin marriages or marriages conducted by state residents out of state.Kissing Cousins: The States Where Marrying Your Relative Is Legal

State or territory First cousin marriage allowed First cousin marriage criminalized 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 AlabamaCode of Alabama Section 30-1-9.1Code of Alabama Section 13A-13-3 AlaskaAlaska Stat. § 25.05.021 (2010)Alaska Stat. § 11.41.450 (2010) ArizonaA.R.S. § 25-101 (2010)A.R.S. § 25-112 (2010)A.R.S. § 13-3608 (2010) In addition to statute, see In re Mortenson's Estate, 83 Ariz. 87, 316 P.2d 1106 (1957) ArkansasA.C.A. § 9-11-106 (2010)A.C.A. § 9-11-107 (2010)A.C.A. § 5-26-202 (2010) See Incest Statutes 2013 (PDF). CaliforniaCal Fam Code § 2200 (2010)Cal Pen Code § 285 (2010)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. ColoradoC.R.S. 14–2-110 (2010)C.R.S. 18–6-301 (2010) ConnecticutConn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-21 (2010)Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-191 (2010) Delaware13 Del. C. § 101 (2010)13 Del. C. § 102 (2010)13 Del. C. § 104 (2010)11 Del. C. § 766 (2010) FloridaFla. Stat. § 741.21 (2010)Fla. Stat. § 826.04 (2010) GeorgiaO.C.G.A. § 19-3-3 (2010)O.C.G.A. § 16-6-22 (2010) HawaiiHRS § 572-1 (2010)HRS § 707-741 (2010) IdahoIdaho Code § 32-205 (2010)Idaho Code § 32-206 (2010)Idaho Code § 32-209 (2010)Idaho Code § 32-501 (2010)Idaho Code § 18-6602 (2010) Illinois§ 750 ILCS 5/212 (2010)§ 750 ILCS 5/213 (2010)§ 750 ILCS 5/216 (2010)750 ILCS 5/301 (2010)720 ILCS 5/11-11 (2010)In re Estate of Mary Kathrein was an Illinois Supreme Court case distinguishing between first cousins once removed and first cousins.Do we really have equality if some cousins can't marry? 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.In addition to statute, see Meisenhelder v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 170 Minn. 317, 213 N.W. 32 (1927) IndianaBurns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-2 (2010)Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-8-3 (2010)Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-8-6 (2010). Note that the laws listed do not pertain to cousin marriage.Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-46-1-3 (2010) See Mason v. Mason, 775 N.E.2d 706, 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 1605 (2002). IowaChapter 595.19 Void Marriages KansasK.S.A. § 23-102 (2009)K.S.A. § 23-115 (2009)K.S.A. § 21-3602 (2009) K.S.A. § 23-2503 (2019) K.S.A. § 23-2503 (2019) KentuckyKentucky Revised Statutes § 402.010 (2010)KRS § 402.040 (2010)KRS § 402.990 (2010)KRS § 530.020 (2010) Class B misdemeanor if marriage entered into; Class A misdemeanor if the couple cohabits after being convicted of entering into a prohibited marriage. A marriage between first cousins (also half-first cousins, second cousins, half-second cousins, first cousins once removed, half-first cousins once removed) will not be recognized in Kentucky even if it is consummated in another state. OAG 71-78. LouisianaLa. Civ. Code art. 90 (2004)La. Civ. Code art. 94 (1988)La. Rev. Stat. 14:89 (2018) See Ghassemi v. Ghassemi Maine MarylandMd. FAMILY LAW Code Ann. § 2-202 (2010)Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 3-323 (2010) MassachusettsALM GL ch. 207, § 1 (2010)ALM GL ch. 207, § 2 (2010)ALM GL ch. 272, § 17 (2010) Michigan See In re Miller's Estate, 239 Mich. 455, 214 N.W. 428 (1927) In addition to statute and preceding reference, see Toth v Toth (1973) 50 Mich App 150, 212 NW2d 812. MinnesotaMinn. Stat. § 517.03 (2009)Minn. Stat. § 518.01 (2009)Minn. Stat. § 609.365 (2009) MississippiMiss. Code Ann. § 93-1-1 (2010)Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-3 (2010)Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-29 (2010) Missouri§ 451.020 R.S.Mo. (2010)§ 568.020 R.S.Mo. (2010) MontanaMont. Code Anno., § 40-1-104 (2010)Mont. Code Anno., § 40-1-401 (2010)Mont. Code Anno., § 45-5-507 (2010) NebraskaR.R.S. Neb. § 42-103 (2010)R.R.S. Neb. § 42-117 (2010)R.R.S. Neb. § 28-702 (2010)R.R.S. Neb. § 28-703 (2010) NevadaNev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 125.290 (2010)Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 201.180 (2010) New HampshireRSA 457:2 (2010)RSA 457:3 (2010)RSA 639:2 (2010) 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) New JerseyN.J. Stat. § 37:1-1 (2010)N.J. Stat. § 2C:14-2 (2010) New MexicoN.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-1-7 (2010)N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-10-3 (2010) New YorkNY CLS Dom Rel § 5 (2010)NY CLS Penal § 255.25 (2010) New York allowed avunculate marriage North CarolinaN.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-3 (2010)N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-178 (2010) North DakotaN.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-03 (2010)N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-08 (2010)N.D. Cent. Code, § 12.1-20-11 (2010) OhioORC Ann. 3101.01 (2010)ORC Ann. 3105.31 (2010)ORC Ann. 2907.03 (2010) Oklahoma43 Okl. St. § 2 (2010)21 Okl. St. § 885 (2010) OregonORS § 106.020 (2009)ORS § 163.525 (2009) See Leefield v. Leefield, (1917) 85 Or 287, 166 P 953. Pennsylvania23 Pa.C.S. § 1304 (2010)23 Pa.C.S. § 3304 (2010)18 Pa.C.S. § 4302 (2010) 23 Pa.C.S. § 1304 (2010) Rhode IslandR.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-1 (2010)R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-2 (2010) South CarolinaS.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-10 (2009)S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-20 (2009) South DakotaS.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-6 (2010)S.D. Codified Laws § 22-22A-2 (2010)S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-38 (2010) See Garcia v. Garcia, 25 S.D. 645, 127 N.W. 586 (1910) TennesseeTenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-101 (2010)Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-302 (2010)Tennessee legislature passes bill banning marriages between first cousins TexasTex. Fam. Code § 2.004 (2010)Texas Family Code, Title 1, Chapter 6, Subtitle BTex. Fam. Code § 6.201 (2010)Tex. Penal Code § 25.02 (2010) UtahUtah Code Ann. § 30-1-1 (2010)Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4 (2010)Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-102 (2010) Vermont15 V.S.A. § 1a (2010)13 V.S.A. § 205 (2010) VirginiaVa. Code Ann. § 20-38.1 (2010)Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-366 (2010) WashingtonRev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.04.020 (2010)Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.09.040 (2010)Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9A.64.020 (2010) While no longer a criminal offense 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). 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). West VirginiaW. Va. Code § 48-2-302 (2010)W. Va. Code § 48-2-303 (2010)W. Va. Code § 48-2-503 (2010)W. Va. Code § 48-3-103 (2010)W. Va. Code § 48-2-602 (2010)W. Va. Code § 61-8-12 (2010) WisconsinWis. Stat. § 765.03 (2010)Wis. Stat. § 765.04 (2010)Wis. Stat. § 765.21 (2010)Note that marriage abroad (out-of-state) to circumvent the laws carries criminal penalties in Wisconsin; see Wis. Stat. § 765.30 (2010)765.30 - Penalties. 765.21 - Unlawful marriages void; validation. WyomingWyo. Stat. § 20-1-111 (2010)Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-101 (2010)Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-402 (2010) American SamoaAmerican Samoa Code Annotated 42.0101 District of ColumbiaD.C. Code § 46-401.01 (2010) GuamGuam Code Annotated §3202 Northern Mariana IslandsNorthern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Code 1205 Marriages "solemnized in accordance with recognized customs, shall be valid." Puerto RicoNew Civil Code Book 2: Title III: Ch I: Sec I: Article 380 U.S. Virgin IslandsVirgin Islands Annotated Code :: 16 V.I.C. § 1. Void marriages

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. Even then the frequently cited 0.2% estimate lacks strong empirical grounding because no nationwide survey or systematic dataset of cousin marriages among U.S. Catholics was conducted. It is unknown what proportion of that number were first cousins, which is the group facing marriage bans.

Some studies 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."Paul and Spencer.

History