united-states marriage adoption
Adopted &quot;Sisters&quot; trying to get married
<p>My partner and I, now 22, were adopted together when we were 12.  The adoption agency believed we were very "sisterly" towards each other and encouraged our adoptive parents to accept both of us into their home.  What they didn't know however was that we were intimate at the time.  We've continued to be girlfriends in secret, but we hope to now marry and spend the rest of our lives together.  Idaho law allows for same sex marriage, but we've been told that it is illegal for adopted siblings to marry, no matter blood relation (we are not blood related)</p>

<p>My question is, does this actually apply to us?  And if so, is there anything we can do to annul our adoptive relationship, or perhaps there is a state that will allow it (as a last resort, uprooting now would be ruinous)</p>

<p>Thank you for your opinion, none of the answers will be construed as legal advice.</p>

<p>One place to look is the incest statute, <a href="https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch66/sect18-6602/" rel="noreferrer">18-6602</a>, which says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which
  marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who
  intermarry with each other, or who commit fornication or adultery with
  each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a
  term not to exceed life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The relevant statute pertaining to consanguinity and marriage <a href="https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title32/T32CH2/SECT32-205/" rel="noreferrer">(32.205)</a> states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of
  every degree, <strong>and between brothers and sisters of the half (1/2) as
  well as the whole blood</strong>, and between uncles and nieces, or aunts and
  nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the
  relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A literal reading of the law with attention to the bold part tells you that the prohibition of marriage between brothers and sisters of full or half blood does not preclude marriage between blood-unrelated sibling. It does, however, not grant the same right to aunts and nephews etc. (including those by adoption), which could engender competing claims about legislative intent. It would then be relevant to look at the Washington analog of this statute, <a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.04.020" rel="noreferrer">RCW 26.04.020</a>, which prohibits marriage:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(1)(b) When the spouses are nearer of kin to each other than second
  cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of
  the civil law.</p>
  
  <p>(2) It is unlawful for any person to marry his or her sibling, child,
  grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here, the blood-relation rule applies to (second) cousins and is absolute for aunts and sibling. It would seem that various legislatures had different intents, in forming these statutes.</p>

<p>In Oregon, <a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.020" rel="noreferrer">ORS 106.020</a> prohibits marriage</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When the parties thereto are first cousins or any nearer of kin to
  each other, whether of the whole or half blood, whether by blood or
  adoption, computing by the rules of the civil law, except that when
  the parties are first cousins by adoption only, the marriage is not
  prohibited or void</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In this case, the Oregon law explicitly equates blood and adoption, and then could cast doubt on the concept of "whole or half blood" as actually referring to blood relationship (although, Oregon is not Idaho, or Washington). </p>

<p>Given the literal reading of the Idaho statutes (and without there being any clarifying case pertaining to relationship by adoption), it may take a court order to compel the county clerk to obey the law, especially if the clerk is dispensing life choice recommendations. That is especially so if the law is not clearly established.</p>

<p>Montana likewise restricts <a href="http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/40/1/40-1-401.htm" rel="noreferrer">(40-1-401)</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>a marriage between an ancestor and a descendant or between a brother
  and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole
  blood, or between first cousins</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That statute also says</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Parties to a marriage prohibited under this section who cohabit after
  removal of the impediment are lawfully married as of the date of the
  removal of the impediment.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, there is no obvious way to get legally unadopted, especially when the parties are adults.</p>

<p>An additional wrinkle is that in Idaho under <a href="https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title32/T32CH2/SECT32-209/" rel="noreferrer">32-209</a>, valid marriages entered into elsewhere are valid in that state</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>unless they violate the public policy of this state. Marriages that
  violate the public policy of this state include, but are not limited
  to, <strong>same-sex marriages</strong>, and marriages entered into under the laws of
  another state or country with the intent to evade the prohibitions of
  the marriage laws of this state.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But it is established law that same-sex marriages are legal. The bold section is <em>clearly</em> unconstitutional; the question then is whether if you took this to SCOTUS, they would strike down the entire statute (a number of states still have such language on their statute books, e.g. Montana still declares that marriage is between a man and a woman). At any rate, a lawyer is probably mandatory.</p>
