The U.S Supreme Court has deemed marriage a fundamental right. To limit this right there must be a compelling interest of the government that would prove limiting the right fair. Based on past rulings and lack of a valid argument against cousin marriage, it is clear that this law is unconstitutional. By using cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Griswold v. Connecticut, it is clear to see that the fundamental right of marriage outweighs the few arguments put forth against it.
Marriage is a fundamental right that is deeply rooted in our countries history and must not be limited by the government. In Loving v. Virginia Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the court that argued that laws prohibiting interracial marriage are unconstitutional as they limit the right to marriage. In his argument Warren made a connection to the earlier case of Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) to make it clear that “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival” (Loving 1967). Justine Warren did not stop there as he continued to …show more content…
However, there is not strong enough cause to limit this fundamental right by prohibiting first cousin marriage. Arguments against first cousin marriage are that it is compelling interest of the government to limit it, and that it goes against societal norms; but these arguments are not strong enough to pass the strict scrutiny test. To limit a fundamental right, the government must prove three things. First they must prove their compelling interest in limiting the right. Next they have to show the law is narrowly tailored in serving this compelling government interest. Finally, they must show that the law uses the least restrictive means in achieving its goal. The law to prohibit first cousin marriage is unconstitutional as it fails not one or two parts of the strict scrutiny test, but all three
Marriage is a fundamental right that is deeply rooted in our countries history and must not be limited by the government. In Loving v. Virginia Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the court that argued that laws prohibiting interracial marriage are unconstitutional as they limit the right to marriage. In his argument Warren made a connection to the earlier case of Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) to make it clear that “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival” (Loving 1967). Justine Warren did not stop there as he continued to …show more content…
However, there is not strong enough cause to limit this fundamental right by prohibiting first cousin marriage. Arguments against first cousin marriage are that it is compelling interest of the government to limit it, and that it goes against societal norms; but these arguments are not strong enough to pass the strict scrutiny test. To limit a fundamental right, the government must prove three things. First they must prove their compelling interest in limiting the right. Next they have to show the law is narrowly tailored in serving this compelling government interest. Finally, they must show that the law uses the least restrictive means in achieving its goal. The law to prohibit first cousin marriage is unconstitutional as it fails not one or two parts of the strict scrutiny test, but all three