Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013 (2026)
Same-sex marriages
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages.
(a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state.
(b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.
(a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state.
(b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 2001–2017 · leading case: State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647 (Alaska 2014).
State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647 (Alaska 2014). “State (“ACLU”)39 and is therefore presumptively constitutional.40 Even assuming, as the State argues, that the statute demonstrates that married couples are not situated similarly to unmarried couples, the statute draws a 38 AS 25.”
Brause v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 21 P.3d 357 (Alaska 2001). “" 1 Count 3 challenges, among other things, on state and federal constitutional grounds AS 25.05.013(b), which provides: "A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.”
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012). “§§ 9-11-109 , -27- 1 issue, Congress was entitled to maintain the status quo pending further developments.”
State v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 204 P.3d 364 (Alaska 2009). “The plaintiffs in Brause, a same-sex couple who were unable to marry, challenged AS 25.05.013(b), which provided that a "same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.”
Hamby v. Parnell, 56 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (D. Alaska 2014). “It provides: § 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages. .(a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the…”
Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006). “I, § 29; Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013 ; Okla. Stat. tit.”
Harris v. Millennium Hotel, 330 P.3d 330 (Alaska 2014). “As we stated in Schmidt, the ballot measure "said nothing about denying or limiting benefits" and "did not refer to, quote, or paraphrase AS 25.05.013(b)." 12 We also observed in both ACLU 13 and Schmidt 14 that an interpretation of the Marriage Amendment like the one Millennium…”
Brause v. State, Dept. of H. & Ss, 21 P.3d 357 (Alaska 2001). “" [1] Count 3 challenges, among other things, on state and federal constitutional grounds AS 25.05.013(b), which provides: "A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.”
Jack Pidgeon & Larry Hicks v. Mayor Sylvester Turner & City of Houston, 538 S.W.3d 73 (2017). “Code § 30-1-19 (1998) ; Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013 (1996) ; Ariz. Rev.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013(b) — 5 cases
State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647 (Alaska 2014). “State (“ACLU”)39 and is therefore presumptively constitutional.40 Even assuming, as the State argues, that the statute demonstrates that married couples are not situated similarly to unmarried couples, the statute draws a 38 AS 25.”
Brause v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 21 P.3d 357 (Alaska 2001). “" 1 Count 3 challenges, among other things, on state and federal constitutional grounds AS 25.05.013(b), which provides: "A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.”
State v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 204 P.3d 364 (Alaska 2009). “The plaintiffs in Brause, a same-sex couple who were unable to marry, challenged AS 25.05.013(b), which provided that a "same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.”
Harris v. Millennium Hotel, 330 P.3d 330 (Alaska 2014). “As we stated in Schmidt, the ballot measure "said nothing about denying or limiting benefits" and "did not refer to, quote, or paraphrase AS 25.05.013(b)." 12 We also observed in both ACLU 13 and Schmidt 14 that an interpretation of the Marriage Amendment like the one Millennium…”
Brause v. State, Dept. of H. & Ss, 21 P.3d 357 (Alaska 2001). “" [1] Count 3 challenges, among other things, on state and federal constitutional grounds AS 25.05.013(b), which provides: "A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.