Jordan Strathmann, MJLST Staffer
Throughout U.S. history, family law has continuously adapted to society’s evolving values, especially within the context of marriage. As a result, formal, ceremonial rites shifted towards doctrines that prioritize the autonomy and intent of the marrying parties.[1] For instance, one of the earliest developments in U.S. marriage was the abolition of coverture and the institution of the Married Women’s Property Acts, which helped ensure that women retained independence within their marriages, rather than occupying a subordinate role to their husbands.[2] Later, restraints on people’s choice to marry, such as those on interracial and same-sex couples, were struck down as violations of the 14th Amendment.[3] Hence, the evolution of marriage laws underscores the principle that it is the parties of a relationship, not their families or the State, who have the sole responsibility for deciding whether to marry, who to marry, and what the terms of their relationship will be.[4]
Accordingly, just as family law has adapted to societal changes, it should also evolve in response to technological advancements, especially when those changes promote the policy values of autonomy and the enhancement of freedom of choice. Digital technology, particularly over the past few decades, has become a vital component of the modern lifestyle.[5] From professional settings, such as schools and the workplace, to social interactions with friends and family, our phones, laptops, social media accounts, and internet access have become essential to participation in society.[6] The deepening of societal dependence on technology has altered the way people foster and maintain intimate relationships, specifically diminishing the importance of “direct face-to-face contact.”[7] The rise of online dating exemplifies this modern shift to digital intimacy.[8] Furthermore, changes in the social mobility of families, and equality in economic capabilities and working demands between the spouses, evidence the dwindling importance of direct personal interaction in maintaining intimacy within a relationship.[9] Instead, the “[i]nternet and mobile applications such as email, instant messaging, and video chat have become the mainstays of daily social contact with family and friends.”[10]
Hence, family law’s propensity to adapt to society, combined with its policy of encouraging equality and autonomy between partners in a relationship, and the modern predilection toward technology, suggests that the next logical step for family law is to authorize virtual marriage. In other words, more state legislatures should allow for couples to marry online rather than requiring an in-person ceremony or proceeding. Just as courts and legislatures have redefined marriage to reflect evolving notions of equality and accessibility, permitting digital ceremonies expands the institution to reflect modern realities of technology and global connectivity. The practical advantages of allowing virtual marriages, such as convenience, affordability, and flexibility for working parties, mirror family law’s broader commitment to ensuring that function of the relationship prevails or formalities.[11] Moreover, allowing couples to choose the form of their ceremony aligns with family law’s policy of minimizing state intervention and leaving to the marrying parties privacy in their personal matters.[12]
Critics may argue that the convenience and flexibility offered by online marriages undermine the institution’s integrity.[13] Some may even question the very legitimacy of online marriages in the absence of a face-to-face proceeding. However, the Supreme Court has already made clear that the substance of the marrying parties’ relationship should prevail over formalistic barriers.[14] Furthermore, eliminating the necessity of an in-person proceeding to solemnize a marriage is by no means novel; proxy marriages have been available to couples since the time of Late Roman Law.[15] While the vast majority of U.S. states have yet to permit virtual marriages, one state is ahead of the curve: Utah.
Under Utah Code § 81-2-302, a marriage license must be issued to the marrying parties by a Utah county clerk, and the officiant of the marriage must be physically present within the state of Utah at the time of solemnization of the marriage. However, the license application, license delivery, receipt, and the marriage ceremony can all be done virtually.[16] Utah still requires applicants to provide the County Clerk with pertinent information to verify their identities, including “full names, social security numbers, addresses, dates and places of birth, parents’ names, birthplaces of the parents, and the age, legal names, and identities of each applicant.”[17] Hence, although the marriage process is conducted online, safeguards are in place to prevent fraud or other illegal marriages. Utah’s current laws on marriage proceedings provide a reliable framework for other states to incorporate virtual marriages into their state laws.
As our world becomes increasingly digitized, with work meetings, school days, and even important business conferences and court proceedings being held online, it should not be seen as a drastic step for society and state legislatures to start accepting online marriage applications and ceremonies. Furthermore, marriage has always been a dynamic element of family law, adapting to societal norms and allowing the intent of the marrying parties to prevail over traditional requirements. Thus, in modern society, where individuals are more independent, mobile, and accustomed to relying on digital technology to handle matters of the utmost importance, states should consider amending their marriage laws to allow for virtual proceedings.
Notes
[1] See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 650 (2015) (stating that “[t]he ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society[,]” in the Court’s discussion of the Nation’s changing perspectives on marriage through history).
[2] Married Women’s Property Acts, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Married-Womens-Property-Acts-United-States-1839 (last visited Oct. 9, 2025) (explaining that Married Women’s Property Acts “expanded the rights of married women to act as independent agents” from their husbands); see also Obergefell at 659–60 (explaining that the abandonment of coverture and expansion of women’s legal rights “worked deep transformations” and strengthened the institution of marriage).
[3] See Obergefell at 665 (holding that the Court’s analysis of the 14th Amendment “compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry”); see also Loving v. West Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11–12 (1967) (holding that “[t]here can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause”).
[4] See Elizabeth S. Scott, Social Norms and the Legal Regulation of Marriage, 86 Va. L. Rev. 1901, 1905 (2000) (explaining that the “legal framework of marriage” has been deregulated through the imposition of egalitarian principles and abolition of legally mandated marital commitments through no-fault divorce laws); see also Nicola Barker, The Evolution of Marriage and Relationship Recognition in Western Jurisdictions, Progress of the World’s Women at 8–9 (Oct. 2018), https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2018/Discussion-paper-Evolution-of-marriage-and-relationship-recognition-in-western-jurisdictions-en.pdf (explaining that the form of marriage and family has become less important to the state).
[5] See Cherie Foo, How Does Technology Influence Our Lives, Sogolytics, https://www.sogolytics.com/blog/how-technology-influences-us/ (“Technology has become an integral part of our lives, revolutionizing the way we work, communicate, and live. From smartphones to smart homes, technology has infiltrated every corner of our existence.”) (last updated June 28, 2024).
[6] Id.
[7] See Anna M. Lomanowska & Matthieu J. Guitton, Online Intimacy and Well-Being in the Digital Age, 4 Internet Intervention 138, 139 (2016), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6096121/pdf/main.pdf (explaining that “physical proximity and direct face-to-face contact have become less prevalent” with society’s shift towards utilizing “[i]nternet-based communication and social networking applications” to “actualize intimacy”).
[8] According to a 2022 Pew Research survey, approximately one in three adults under the age of thirty reported using a dating site or app. See Emily A. Vogels & Colleen McClain, Key Findings About Online Dating in the U.S., Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Feb. 22, 2023), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/. The survey also revealed that approximately one in ten adults under the age of 30 who were married, living with a partner, or in a committed romantic relationship met their current partner through a dating site or app. Id.
[9] See generally Frank F. Furstenburg, Family Change in Global Perspective: How and Why Family Systems Change, 68 Future Healthy Fams. (Special Issue) 326 (2019) (describing how “the most important” change in the family structure was “the transition from a predominately traditional subsistence economy to a production-oriented economy transformed” which “expand[ed] a job-based economy that favors younger and more geographically mobile individuals).
[10] See Anna M. Lomanowska & Matthieu J. Guitton supra note vii at 139.
[11] Rebecca Aviel, A New Formalism for Family Law, 55 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2003, 2003 (2014) (explaining that, despite family law becoming more formalist in some respects, with regard to recognition of marital relationships “family law is experiencing a trend toward more flexible decision making that prioritizes functional assessment of relationships above formal legal status”); see also June Carbone & Naomi Cahn, Uncoupling, 53 Ariz. St. L.J. 1, 27 (2021) (explaining that “the new system [of legal regulation of marriage] rewards those who manage the human capital investments necessary to achieve labor market nimbleness and family relationships based on flexibility, reciprocity and trust. . .”).
[12] See Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 386 (1978) (explaining that the right to privacy within family life also extends to the choice of entering marriage).
[13] U.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 809 (2013) (describing how other critics of substantial changes in marriage, specifically same-sex marriage in this case, believe that those changes “will seriously undermine the institution of marriage”) (Alito J., dissenting).
[14] Obergefell at 666–67 (describing marriage as “an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects”).
[15] Ernest Lorenzen, Marriage By Proxy and the Conflict of Laws, 32 Harv. L. Rev. 473, 473 (1918) (asserting that, in answering the question of whether American soldiers abroad during the ongoing World War could contract a marriage by proxy, it should be considered “[t]hat marriage by proxy was allowed in the late Roman law and in the Canon Law”).
[16] See Marriage – Frequently Asked Questions, Utah County Clerk, https://www.utahcounty.gov/dept/clerk/marriage/faq.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2025); see also Marriage Ceremonies, Utah Cnty. Clerk https://www.utahcounty.gov/dept/clerk/marriage/ceremony.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2025).
[17] Utah Code § 81-2-303.