Okla. Stat. » Title 43 — MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3.1 (2026)

Recognition of marriage between persons of same gender

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

prohibited. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. Added by Laws 1996, c. 131, § 9, eff. Jan. 1, 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2012–2017 · leading case: Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 5× “The plaintiffs claimed that they had suffered economic injuries as a result of the federal statute’s ban, including a decreased 1 Smith also argues that the Barton couple does not have standing to contest Part B of SQ 711 because they did not challenge Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3.1…”
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012). “2, § 35; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, § 3.1 ; Or. Const.”
Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014). “Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3.1 ("A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.”
Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F. Supp. 2d 542 (W.D. Ky. 2014). “§§ 14-03-01, -08 (West 2013); Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3.1 (2013); 23 Pa.”
Jack Pidgeon & Larry Hicks v. Mayor Sylvester Turner & City of Houston, 538 S.W.3d 73 (2017). “01 (2004); Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3.1 (1997); 23 Pa.”
Bishop v. Smith (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “The plaintiffs claimed that they had suffered economic injuries as a result of the federal statute’s ban, including a decreased 1 Smith also argues that the Barton couple does not have standing to contest Part B of SQ 711 because they did not challenge Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3.1…”
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.