Some news sources then referred only to the provisions on polygamy and child abuse, ignoring the part of the law relating to marriage between cousins, as did some more recent sources. [184] [185] [186] [187] The new law made sexual intercourse with a first-degree adult cousin a more serious crime than with adult immediate family members. However, this law was amended in 2009; While sexual intercourse with close adult family members (including first-degree cousins) remains a crime, the harshest penalty is now associated with sexual relations with a person`s direct ancestor or descendants. [188] The cousin prohibitions violate the fundamental right to marry, which has been established over a century of Supreme Court jurisprudence in both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.145See section I.C. above. This section will show that prohibitions trigger a stricter and stricter form of control through direct prohibitions or severe restrictions on the freedom of a particular identity group to exercise this fundamental right.146See section II.A. It will show that States must prove that prohibitions are narrowly designed means to achieve essential or overriding interests.147See sections II.B TO II.C. below. It will then examine the main justifications for the prohibitions and show that no one can exceed this constitutional threshold.148See sections II.B-II.C. below. India`s Muslim minority makes up about 14 percent of its population and has an overall cousin marriage rate of 22 percent, according to a 2000 report.

This could be a legacy of the partition of the subcontinent between India and Pakistan, when a large Muslim migration to Pakistan took place from the eastern parts of the former United States of Punjab. In South India, on the other hand, rates are relatively constant, with the exception of Malabar Muslims from Kerala in South India (9%), who claim descent from Arab traders who settled permanently in India in the eighth century. In contrast, most Indian Muslims are the result of Hindu conversions to Islam in the 16th century or later. The lowest rate for an entire Indian region was in eastern India (15%). Inbreeding rates have been generally stable over the four decades for which data are available, although marriage between second-degree cousins appears to have declined in favour of marriage with first-degree cousins. Rates of marriage between cousins in most African countries outside the Middle East are unknown. It is estimated that 35-50% of all populations in sub-Saharan Africa prefer or accept marriages between cousins. [54] In Nigeria, Africa`s most populous country, the three largest tribes in order of size are the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo. [55] The Hausa are predominantly Muslim, although there are followers of traditional religions. Muslim Hausa prefer to practice marriage between cousins, and polygamy is allowed if the husband can support several wives. [56] The book Baba of Karo presents an important account of Hausa life: According to its English co-author, it is not known that Hausa women are not married for long periods after the age of about 14.

[57] Divorce can easily be done by a man or a woman, but women must remarry. [58] Even for a man, the absence of a spouse is neglected. [59] Baba of Karos was with his cousin in the second degree. She tells in the book that her good friend married her friend`s first cousin of the cross. [60] Laws targeting particular groups to exercise marriage law in a restricted manner on the basis of the identity of that group, regardless of the identity in question, have been struck down repeatedly.152 See section I.C.2 above for a detailed description of the Court`s concern that all have equal access to marriage; Bhagwat agreement, op. cit. cit., note 100, pp. 395-96 (explanation of how equal protection can be applied to far-reaching classification systems). Hence the need,153See generally Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971). Imprisonment,154See generally Turner v.

Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Jones v. Perry, 215 F. Supp.3d 563 (E.D. Ky. 2016) (stating that the requirement that both parties be physically present when applying for a marriage certificate is an unconstitutional violation of an imprisoned woman`s right to marry). and non-custodial single parents155Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 375 (1978) (“The group is defined by law as any “Wisconsin resident” who has minor problems that are not in his custody and whom he is required to support himself.”).

are all identities for which the Court has intervened in the face of regulations that have significantly restricted access to marriage on the basis of these characteristics.156See section I.C.1 above. Similarly, sexual orientation in Obergefell has not been clearly classified as a protected class;157Carl H. Esbeck, A Post-Obergefell America: Is a Season of Legal and Social Strife Inevitable?, 11 Christian Law. 3 (2015) (“Obergefell did not extend the rigour of the equality clause to “sexual orientation” as a protected class.”). But see Autumn L. Bernhardt, The Profound and Intimate Power of the Obergefell Decision: Equal Dignity as a Suspect Class, 25 Tul. J.L. & Sexuality 1, 15–17 (2016) (arguing that Obergefell applied the standard analysis of the same protection and viewed sexual orientation as a suspect class worthy of increased scrutiny). On the contrary, a classification based on sex based on a doctrine of “equal dignity” has been abolished, according to which all persons enjoy constitutionally protected autonomy to have a marriage that satisfies on a personal level.158Yoshino, op.

cit. note 93, pp. 171-79; Tribe, op. cit. Cit. note 95, pp. 17, 23-32. The cousin directly and substantially prohibits the right to marry by absolutely prohibiting or severely restricting marriage between first cousins.165 See generally above, section I.B.1. Those that invariably prohibit the marriage of a first-degree cousin – the majority come close,166 note notes 44-45 above and the accompanying text – are directly analogous to the Loving or Obergefell laws: the state establishes an identity, whether race,167 Virginia law in Loving stated that it is a crime for “every white person to marry a person of color. or for any person of color, to marry a white person. Loving, 388 U.S.