Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113 (2026)
[See Compiler's Note.] Marriage between one man and one woman only legally recognized marital contract
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Tennessee's marriage licensing laws reinforce, carry forward, and make explicit the long-standing public policy of this state to recognize the family as essential to social and economic order and the common good and as the fundamental building block of our society. To that end, it is further the public policy of this state that the historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state in order to provide the unique and exclusive rights and privileges to marriage.
- (b) The legal union in matrimony of only one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only recognized marriage in this state.
- (c) Any policy, law or judicial interpretation that purports to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one (1) man and one (1) woman is contrary to the public policy of Tennessee.
- (d) If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry, which marriages are prohibited in this state, any such marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.
Acts 1996, ch. 1031, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 130
cases, 1999–2020 · leading case: In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(c)(1); In re Valentine, 79 S.”
In Re: Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(a) (2001). Parental autonomy is the cornerstone of this concept.”
Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012). “2d 19, 24 (1957); Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(a) (2010). Beginning with the enactment of the Married Women’s Emancipation Act in 1913, which removed the disabilities of coverture, 18 both the General Assembly and this Court have implemented evolutionary changes in the law’s…”
In Re Addalyne S., 556 S.W.3d 774 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113 (c); In re Valentine, 79 S.”
Earls v. Earls, 42 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Accordingly, it extolls heterosexual marriage as the "fundamental building block of our society." It stops far short, however, of endorsing the notion that either individual or societal interests will be advanced by condemning two persons to loveless marital unions.”
In Re: I.E.A., 511 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113 (c)(1); In re Valentine, 79 S.”
State, Dep't of Child.'s Servs. v. Hood, 338 S.W.3d 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(c)(1); In re Valentine, 79 S.”
In Re Daymien T., 506 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113 (c)(1); In re Valentine, 79 S.”
In Re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 36-3-113(a) (2005). Even the statutes empowering the courts to remove children from their parents’ custody include within their primary purpose protecting children from “unnecessary separation” from their parents.”
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012). “XI, § 18; Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113; Tex. Const. Art.”
In the Matter of DOMINIQUE L.H., 393 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(c)(1); In re Valentine, 79 S.”
White v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113 (1996). 3 . Aside from other statutory proceedings affecting the right of parents to custody and control of their minor children, our legislature has, in fact, promulgated legislation specifically relating to certain nonparents' rights to visitation.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113(a) — 5 cases
In Re: Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(a) (2001). Parental autonomy is the cornerstone of this concept.”
Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012). “2d 19, 24 (1957); Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(a) (2010). Beginning with the enactment of the Married Women’s Emancipation Act in 1913, which removed the disabilities of coverture, 18 both the General Assembly and this Court have implemented evolutionary changes in the law’s…”
In Re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 36-3-113(a) (2005). Even the statutes empowering the courts to remove children from their parents’ custody include within their primary purpose protecting children from “unnecessary separation” from their parents.”
State Ex Rel. Cihlar v. Crawford, 39 S.W.3d 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
In the matter of: April F. (d.o.b. 11/20/98), Dylan F. (d.o.b. 3/30/00), & Devin F. (d.o.b. 7/24/06 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113(c)(1) — 5 cases
In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(c)(1); In re Valentine, 79 S.”
State, Dep't of Child.'s Servs. v. Hood, 338 S.W.3d 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(c)(1); In re Valentine, 79 S.”
In the Matter of DOMINIQUE L.H., 393 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-113(c)(1); In re Valentine, 79 S.”
State of Tennesse, Dep't of Child.'s Servs. v. Dedrus Peterson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
State of Tennessee, Dep't of Child.'s Servs. v. Marlow Williams (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113(q) — 1 case
James Rainey v. Leslie Head (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
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.