Manava Dharmashastra 3.24

3.24

āsuragāndharvayorayaṃ niṣedho brāhmaṇasya punarbrāhmādividhānena | evaṃ kṣatriyasya rākṣasa evaiko na gāndharvāsurau | āsura eva vaiśyaśūdrayoḥ | vihitapratiṣiddhānāṃ vikalpaḥ | tataśca nityavadvihitābhāve vikalpiteṣu pravṛttiḥ | yasya ca yo vihitaḥ sa tadvivāhābhāvamanapekṣya prathamata eva yadi vihitapratiṣiddheṣu pravarteta, tatra puruṣo duṣyedapatyaṃ cānabhipretamutpadyeteti śāstrakāreṇa darśitaṃ ‘prasave ca guṇāguṇān’ ityādinā | na tu sapiṇḍādipariṇayavat vivāhasvarūpānirvṛttiḥ |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The further recommendation of the ‘Brāhma’ and other three forms for the Brāhmaṇa, means that the ‘Āsura’ and the ‘Gāndharva’ are prohibited for him.

Similarly, for the Kṣatriya, it is the ‘Rākṣasa’ alone, not the ‘Āsura’ and the ‘Gāndharva.’

For the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, it is the ‘Āsura’ alone.

Among those that have been sanctioned (before) and prohibited now, there is to be option; so that one may have recourse to the optional forms only when those that have been sanctioned absolutely in all cases are not possible. If a man were to have recourse to those forms of marriage that have been sanctioned in one place and interdicted in another, without considering the possibility or otherwise of those that are absolutely sanctioned,—he would be committing a wrong, and his offspring would be defective;—this is what the law-giver has indicated under verse 23 above by the phrase, ‘the good and bad effects upon the offspring.’ But such an act would not nullify the marriage itself in the way in which the fact of the bride being the bridegroom’s ‘sapiṇḍa’ does.—(24)