Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 25
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-101 (2026)

Void and prohibited marriages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one-half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce. 

C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case: Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 21× “Because Petitioners do not have a fundamental right to enter a same-sex marriage under those provisions, they similarly lack a fundamental right under Arizona’s explicit privacy provision.”
Marriage of Cook v. Cook, 104 P.3d 857 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 16× “” A.R.S. § 25-101. 2 However, when the Cooks moved to Arizona, *479 our law also provided that “[m]arriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state.”
Riepe v. Riepe, 91 P.3d 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “[14] The legislature emphasized the importance of the tie to gender (no more than one person of each gender) by also providing that "[m]arriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by § 25-101…”
Hammett v. Hammett, 453 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 25-101. Different types of marriages are prohibited in Arizona, see, e.”
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “2 Otherwise, “marriage” and “spouse” for the purposes of federal law would depend on the 3 outcome of this debate in each state, with the meanings of those terms under federal law 4 changing with any change in a given state.”
Myrick v. Maloney, 333 P.3d 818 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “24] or [AR.S. §§ 25-101 through 25-415]. On request of a party or another court of competent jurisdiction, the court shall make specific findings concerning the portions of any *494 award of fees and expenses that are based on consideration of financial resources and that are…”
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn, 55 P.3d 74 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “This action does not involve a marriage prohibited by A.R.S. § 25-101 (2000). That section bans marriages between certain blood relatives and between persons of the same sex.”
Marriage of Medlin v. Medlin, 981 P.2d 1087 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by § 25-101. B. Marriages solemnized in another state or country by parties intending at the time to reside in this state shall have the same legal…”
Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006). “Const. art. I, § 21; N.D. Const. art. XI, § 28; Ohio Const.”
State v. Wilhite, 772 P.2d 582 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “The latter provides: § 13-3608: Persons who are fifteen or more years of age and are within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who knowingly intermarry with each other, or who knowingly commit fornication or…”
Beatie v. Beatie, 333 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “That statute provides that “[m]arriages valid by the law of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibits ed by § 25-101.” AR.S. § 25-112(A). Thomas and Nancy entered into marriage in Hawaii, which at the time restricted…”
State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Demetz, 130 P.3d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Significantly, interpreting § 25-503(M)(l) to permit this revival furthers Arizona’s policy of placing the burden of financially supporting minor children on parents rather than on the public coffers. ¶ 12 Father argues that although a childs unemancipated status can revive upon…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-101(0) — 1 case
Riepe v. Riepe, 91 P.3d 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “[14] The legislature emphasized the importance of the tie to gender (no more than one person of each gender) by also providing that "[m]arriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by § 25-101…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-101(A) — 3 cases
McKnight v. McKnight (D. Ariz. 2021).
Hoffman v. Hon. miller/hoffman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Hoffman v. Hon. miller/hoffman, 529 P.3d 101 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-101(B) — 2 cases
Hoffman v. Hon. miller/hoffman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Hoffman v. Hon. miller/hoffman, 529 P.3d 101 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-101(C) — 8 cases
Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “Because Petitioners do not have a fundamental right to enter a same-sex marriage under those provisions, they similarly lack a fundamental right under Arizona’s explicit privacy provision.”
Riepe v. Riepe, 91 P.3d 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “[14] The legislature emphasized the importance of the tie to gender (no more than one person of each gender) by also providing that "[m]arriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by § 25-101…”
Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Beatie v. Beatie, 333 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “That statute provides that “[m]arriages valid by the law of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibits ed by § 25-101.” AR.S. § 25-112(A). Thomas and Nancy entered into marriage in Hawaii, which at the time restricted…”
Majors v. Horne, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (D. Ariz. 2014).
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.