(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this
section, a marriage is valid in this state if:
(a) It is licensed, solemnized, and registered as provided in this part 1; and
(b) It is only between one man and one woman.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14-2-112, any marriage contracted within
or outside this state that does not satisfy paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not
be recognized as valid in this state.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to repeal or render invalid any otherwise
valid common law marriage between one man and one woman:
(a) Entered into prior to September 1, 2006; or
(b) Entered into on or after September 1, 2006, that complies with section 14-2-109.5.
Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1016, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 90-1-4. L. 2000: Entire section
amended, p. 1054, § 1, effective May 26. L. 2006, 1st Ex. Sess.: (3) amended, p. 9, § 1, effective
July 18.
Cross references: For the validity or recognition of marriages in this state, see section 31
of article II of the state constitution; for cases construing constitutional and statutory provisions
similar to section 31 of article II of the state constitution, see the editor's note under section 31 of
article II.
Notes of Decisions
Parental Responsibilities Concerning D.P.G, 2020 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“Rather, the parties did not engage in a marriage of any type. Both statutory and common law marriages require the mutual consent or agreement of both parties to the creation of a marital relationship.”
In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1 (Colo. 2021).
“See §§ 14-2-104 to -109, C.R.S. (2020). ¶74 As the justifications for common law marriage have receded, social norms surrounding romantic relationships and childrearing have changed and the acceptance of non-marital cohabitation and co-parenting has increased.”
In re the Marriage of Edi L. HOGSETT v. Marcia E. NEALE, 478 P.3d 713 (Colo. 2021).
“See §§ 14-2-104 to - 109, C.R.S. ( 2020 ) . ¶74 As the justifications for common law marriage have receded, social norms surrounding romantic relationships and childrearing have changed and the acceptance of non-marital cohabitation and co-parenting has increased.”
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “As the Massachusetts Supreme Court stated when it held that the Massachusetts 13 state constitution required allowing same-sex couples to marry, “[t]he genius of our Federal 9-11-107, 9-11-208; Cal.”
of Hogsett, 2018 COA 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Thus, the court properly gave less weight to such indicia during the parties’ pre-Obergefell relationship.”
Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006).
“5 ; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-104 ; Conn. Gen. Stat.”
Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007).
“5 (West); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-2-104; Conn. Gen.Stat.”
Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc, 2015 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “2, § 81; § 14-2-104(1)(b), C.R.S. 2014. T 6 Craig and Mullins later filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division), alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-84-8301 to -804; C.”
Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006).
“5 (Thomson/West 2004) Colorado: Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-2-104 (Lexis-Nexis 2005) Connecticut: no law or constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman Delaware: Del.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-104(1)(a) — 1 case
Parental Responsibilities Concerning D.P.G, 2020 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“Rather, the parties did not engage in a marriage of any type. Both statutory and common law marriages require the mutual consent or agreement of both parties to the creation of a marital relationship.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-104(1)(b) — 4 cases
of Hogsett, 2018 COA 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“Thus, the court properly gave less weight to such indicia during the parties’ pre-Obergefell relationship.”
Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc, 2015 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“2, § 81; § 14-2-104(1)(b), C.R.S. 2014. T 6 Craig and Mullins later filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division), alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-84-8301 to -804; C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-104(2) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-104(3) — 1 case
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.