Also known as: right to marry
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A fundamental constitutional liberty interest that protects an individual's choice of marital partner from state interference unsupported by sufficiently important interests closely tailored to those ends.
Farah Fox and Fernando Farrell, an interracial couple, moved to a new state and applied for family tax credits available to married households. Officials denied the credits solely because the marriage crossed racial lines. The denial imposed a direct burden on their marital choice that triggered strict scrutiny and could not stand without a purpose detached from racial discrimination.
Freya Freeman owed arrears from a prior relationship. A statute required her to obtain court permission before marrying her fiancé until the debt was paid in full. The requirement created a substantial obstacle to entering the marital relationship that demanded a close fit to the state's collection goals.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Fabian Flynn's will left property to his son only if the son married within a specified religious group. The son challenged the condition after marrying outside the group. The restriction directly limited the son's freedom to select a spouse and could not be enforced as written.
Francesca Fowler sought to marry her long-term partner while terminally ill. State officials argued that the marriage right did not extend to end-of-life decisions. The claim rested on distinct liberty interests that courts evaluate separately from marital choice.
Francois Fortier and his same-sex partner obtained a valid out-of-state marriage. Upon relocating, state agencies refused to recognize the marriage for spousal benefits. The refusal treated the marriage as second-class and violated the requirement of equal recognition.
A city ordinance capped the number of unrelated persons who could live together in a single dwelling. Freya Freeman wished to reside with her adult child and grandchild after marrying. The limit intruded on protected family living arrangements tied to marital and parental bonds.
Yes. Once a state recognizes civil marriage, it must extend the same incidents and recognition to same-sex marriages that it grants to opposite-sex marriages.
No. Such a requirement significantly interferes with the fundamental right and must be narrowly tailored to the state's collection interests. A flat bar or permission scheme that prevents marriage fails that test.
Yes. Racial restrictions on whom one may marry are subject to the most rigid scrutiny and cannot survive without a purpose wholly independent of invidious discrimination.
Prison rules restricting marriage must be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. A blanket prohibition lacking such a connection is invalid even under deferential review.
…Wade , 410 U. S. 113, 152-154 (woman's right to decide whether to terminate pregnancy); Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, 12 (freedom to marry person of another race); Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U. S. 479; Eisenstadt v. Baird , 405 U. S. 438 (right to use contraceptives); Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U. S. 510, 534-535…