Marriage under Family Law
Marriage under Family Law
1. Overview
Marriage is a legal contract and social institution regulated primarily by state law. It creates a legally recognized relationship between two persons, conferring rights and obligations.
Marriage under family law governs:
Formation (requirements and formalities)
Validity (void and voidable marriages)
Rights and duties (spousal support, property rights)
Dissolution (divorce and annulment)
2. Formation of Marriage
Key legal requirements generally include:
Capacity: Both parties must have legal capacity (age, mental competency).
Consent: Both must consent voluntarily.
Formalities: Compliance with licensing, solemnization, and registration requirements.
3. Key Legal Concepts
Void marriage: Legally invalid from the beginning (e.g., bigamy, incest).
Voidable marriage: Valid until annulled (e.g., fraud, coercion, impotence).
Common law marriage: Recognized in some states based on cohabitation and holding out as spouses without formal ceremony.
4. Key Cases
a) Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Facts:
Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, a Black woman, were married in Washington, D.C., but arrested in Virginia under state law prohibiting interracial marriage. They challenged the law.
Holding:
The Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Significance:
Legalized interracial marriage nationwide and affirmed marriage as a fundamental right that cannot be restricted by racial classifications.
b) Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Facts:
Several same-sex couples challenged state bans on same-sex marriage.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing the constitutional right to marry regardless of gender, affirming marriage equality nationwide.
c) Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711 (1948)
Facts:
An interracial couple sought a marriage license in California and were denied based on state anti-miscegenation laws.
Holding:
The California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on interracial marriage, the first such ruling in the U.S.
Significance:
Preceded Loving v. Virginia by nearly 20 years and set early precedent for marriage equality.
d) Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
Facts:
Inmates challenged prison regulations prohibiting marriage without prison superintendent’s approval.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the regulations violated the inmates’ right to marry, which is a fundamental right, unless the restrictions are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
Significance:
Affirmed that the right to marry applies even in restricted contexts but can be subject to reasonable limitations.
e) Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984)
Facts:
In a custody dispute, the father argued that the mother’s interracial relationship should disqualify her from custody.
Holding:
The Court rejected racial bias as a factor in custody decisions, emphasizing that private biases may not justify discriminatory state action.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that the law should not permit racial prejudice to affect family law determinations, including marriage and custody.
5. Additional Concepts and Case Law
Void and Voidable Marriages:
States recognize certain marriages as void (e.g., incestuous) or voidable (e.g., bigamy, underage without consent). Annulments declare marriages invalid from inception.
Common Law Marriage:
Recognized in some states. Key case:
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) upheld the ban on polygamy but discussed common law marriage as a valid form of marital relationship.
Spousal Rights:
Marriage creates legal rights such as inheritance, tax benefits, and spousal support obligations.
6. Summary
| Aspect | Explanation | Leading Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Interracial Marriage | Prohibited by law until declared unconstitutional | Loving v. Virginia; Perez v. Sharp |
| Same-Sex Marriage | Right to marry recognized constitutionally | Obergefell v. Hodges |
| Right to Marry in Prison | Subject to reasonable limitations but fundamental | Turner v. Safley |
| Family Law & Non-Discrimination | Law must avoid racial bias in custody or marriage issues | Palmore v. Sidoti |
| Marriage Validity | Void vs voidable marriages; formal requirements | Various state law precedents |
RELATED Blog
0 comments