Miscellaneous Tradition Rules
1) We will discuss only briefly the recognition of
marriages
under the First Restatement. The topic of the recognition of marriages
–
including same-sex marriages and the Defense of Marriage Act – will be
dealt
with in greater detail later.
2) As you can see from the reading, the rule in
section 121
of the First Restatement, that “a
marriage is valid everywhere if the requirements of the marriage law of
the state
where the contract of marriage takes place are complied with,” is taken
back to
a great extent by section 132. But consider the converse: Two
domiciliaries of
3)
Section 132 of the
First Restatement states that "a
marriage which is against the law of the state of domicil of either
party,
though the requirements of the law of the state of celebration have
been
complied with, will be invalid everywhere” when it is “a marriage of a
domiciliary which a statute at the domicil makes void even though
celebrated in
another state.” This is uncharacteristic of the First Restatement. Why?
4)
The full text of 132 is as follows:
§ 132.
Marriage Declared Void By Law Of Domicil
A
marriage which is against the law of the
state of domicil of either party, though the requirements of the law of
the
state of celebration have been complied with, will be invalid
everywhere in the
following cases:
(a)
polygamous marriage,
(b)
incestuous marriage between persons so
closely related that their marriage is contrary to a strong
public policy of the domicil,
(c)
marriage between persons of different
races where such marriages are at the domicil regarded as odious,
(d)
marriage of a domiciliary which a
statute at the domicil makes void even though celebrated in another
state.
What
would be the result under section
132 of the First Restatement in the following scenario (ignore Loving
v.