Consanguineous Marriage Prohibition Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a federal prohibition on marriages between first cousins or closer relatives by blood or marriage, aiming to standardize marriage definitions across states for federal purposes.
What it actually does
This bill amends Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, to explicitly prohibit the federal recognition of marriages between individuals who are related by affinity or consanguinity within the degree of first cousin. This means that for any federal law referencing marriage, a union between first cousins or closer relatives by blood or marriage would not be recognized, thereby establishing a uniform federal standard.
Proponents argue
Proponents would argue that this bill codifies a widely accepted societal norm and public health concern into federal law, preventing potential legal ambiguities or challenges to state-level prohibitions. They might emphasize the genetic risks associated with consanguineous marriages and the importance of a uniform federal standard to ensure consistency in federal benefits and recognition.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that marriage law is traditionally a matter for states, and this bill represents an overreach of federal power into an area of traditional state jurisdiction. They could also raise concerns about the definition of 'affinity' and its potential implications for complex family structures, or question the necessity of federal intervention given existing state laws.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, making it highly accessible for public review and evaluation.
Section 2
Federal Prohibition on Consanguineous and Affinity Marriage
This section amends Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, which defines 'marriage' and 'spouse' for federal purposes. The amendment adds a clause specifying that for a union to be recognized as a marriage, the '2 individuals' must 'not be related by affinity or consanguinity within the degree of first cousin.' This means that any marriage between individuals who are first cousins or closer relatives, whether by blood (consanguinity) or by marriage (affinity), would not be recognized by the federal government for any federal law or program.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that this provision establishes a clear, uniform federal standard for marriage, preventing legal challenges or inconsistencies that might arise from differing state laws regarding consanguineous or affinity unions. They might emphasize public health concerns related to genetic risks in blood relatives and the societal consensus against such unions.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision encroaches on states' rights to define marriage within their borders, an area traditionally reserved for state legislatures. They could argue that existing state laws are sufficient and federal intervention is unnecessary, potentially creating confusion for couples whose marriages are valid at the state level but not federally recognized.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for a uniform federal definition of marriage with the principle of states' rights in regulating domestic relations. It also weighs public health considerations and widely held social norms against individual autonomy in marital choices, though the latter is less prominent given the widespread societal taboo against such unions.
The bill prohibits marriages between individuals related by 'affinity' within the degree of first cousin. Affinity refers to relationships by marriage (e.g., step-siblings, in-laws), not solely by blood.
Section 2, amending Section 7 of title 1, United States Code.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting, using precise legal terminology. It is not necessarily evasive, but it requires legal interpretation to fully grasp its comprehensive scope beyond just blood relatives.
Case for: Including 'affinity' ensures that relationships established through marriage are also considered in the prohibition, preventing loopholes where such relationships might be used to circumvent the spirit of the law, especially in cases of adoption or remarriage, and aligning with some state prohibitions.
Case against: Critics might argue that extending the prohibition to 'affinity' relationships could be overly broad or create unintended consequences, particularly in complex family structures, and might not carry the same genetic or societal concerns as consanguineous relationships, potentially infringing on individual choices where no biological risk exists.
Estimated impact: This broadens the scope of prohibited marriages beyond blood relatives to include certain relationships by marriage, potentially affecting a slightly larger, though still very small, number of individuals who might otherwise seek federal recognition for such unions.