Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 765.001 (2026)
Title, intent and construction of chs
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
765.001(2)(2) Intent. It is the intent of chs. 765 to 768 to promote the stability and best interests of marriage and the family. It is the intent of the legislature to recognize the valuable contributions of both spouses during the marriage and at termination of the marriage by dissolution or death. Marriage is the institution that is the foundation of the family and of society. Its stability is basic to morality and civilization, and of vital interest to society and the state. The consequences of the marriage contract are more significant to society than those of other contracts, and the public interest must be taken into account always. The seriousness of marriage makes adequate premarital counseling and education for family living highly desirable and courses thereon are urged upon all persons contemplating marriage. The impairment or dissolution of the marriage relation generally results in injury to the public wholly apart from the effect upon the parties immediately concerned. Under the laws of this state, marriage is a legal relationship between 2 equal persons, a husband and wife, who owe to each other mutual responsibility and support. Each spouse has an equal obligation in accordance with his or her ability to contribute money or services or both which are necessary for the adequate support and maintenance of his or her minor children and of the other spouse. No spouse may be presumed primarily liable for support expenses under this subsection.
765.001(3)(3) Construction. Chapters 765 to 768 shall be liberally construed to effect the objectives of sub. (2).
765.001 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 32 ss. 48, 92 (2); 1979 c. 175 s. 53; Stats. 1979 s. 765.001; 1983 a. 186.
765.001 NoteNOTE: In Wolf v. Walker, 26 F. Supp. 3d 866 (2014), the U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin declared that “Any Wisconsin statutory provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a ‘husband’ and a ‘wife,’ are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.” Affirmed. 766 F.3d 648. U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 14-2526, issued September 4, 2014. See also Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015).
765.001 AnnotationA land contract that required a reconveyance to the husband’s parents if he became divorced within ten years was not against public policy. In re Terrill v. Terrill, 98 Wis. 2d 213, 295 N.W.2d 809 (Ct. App. 1980).
765.001 AnnotationThe family code does not preclude an unmarried cohabitant from asserting contract and property claims against the other cohabitant. Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506, 405 N.W.2d 303 (1987).
765.001 AnnotationThe obligation of support is imposed under this section and is not relieved simply because s. 766.55 (2) (a) may not apply. Sinai Samaritan Medical Center, Inc. v. Mc Cabe, 197 Wis. 2d 709, 541 N.W.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0012.
765.001 AnnotationUnder the unique circumstances of this case, including prior residence in a common-law marriage state, the marriage of a Hmong couple who were married in a traditional Hmong ceremony that was not certified by the former Laotian government was valid. Xiong v. Xiong, 2002 WI App 110, 255 Wis. 2d 693, 648 N.W.2d 900, 01-0844.
765.001 AnnotationUnder Xiong, 2002 WI App 110, a putative marriage is a marriage that has been solemnized in proper form and celebrated in good faith by one or both parties but that, by reason of some legal infirmity, is either void or voidable. In this case, the trial court properly found that the parties took part in traditional Hmong marriage rituals and that both of these parties believed they were married as supported by immigration documents in which one party represented that he was the other’s husband, a real estate deed was signed by both parties as “husband and wife,” and the parties submitted joint income tax returns. The Xiong case was not inapplicable because it was a wrongful death lawsuit, rather than a family court action, and the Xiong court’s ruling that a putative marriage existed did not depend on its finding that the parties in that case had lived for years in a state that recognized common-law marriage. Xiong v. Vang, 2017 WI App 73, 378 Wis. 2d 636, 904 N.W.2d 814, 16-1281.
765.001 AnnotationAs a general matter, whether a marriage is valid is controlled by the law of the place where the marriage is contracted. There is no legal authority for the proposition that the law of the parties’ country of domicile should determine the validity of their marriage, rather than the law of the country where the marriage occurs. Xiong v. Vang, 2017 WI App 73, 378 Wis. 2d 636, 904 N.W.2d 814, 16-1281.
765.001 AnnotationSame-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all states. The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015).
765.001 AnnotationA wife’s assets could be used to pay for her husband’s appointed counsel. United States v. Conn, 645 F. Supp. 44 (1986).
765.001 AnnotationSame-Sex Divorce and Wisconsin Courts: Imperfect Harmony? Thorson. 92 MLR 617 (2009).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Julaine K. Appling v. Scott Walker, 2014 WI 96 (Wis. 2014).
Julaine K. Appling v. Scott Walker, 2014 WI 96 (Wis. 2014). “26 ¶44 Chapter 770 does not impose the same obligations on domestic partners as Wisconsin law imposes on married couples 24 Compare Wis. Stat. § 765.001 , discussing the legislative intent of marriage laws, which states in part, "Marriage is the institution that is the…”
In Re Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer, 2000 WI 132 (Wis. 2000). “001(2) provides a general statutory statement of legislative intent applicable to the four statutory chapters that comprise the Family Code. The statute makes a strong statement`regarding the importance of marriage and family.”
Bammert v. Don's SuperValu, Inc., 2002 WI 85 (Wis. 2002). “001 (2), which describes the intent of the Family Code as including the promotion of the institution of marriage, for the preservation of the family, society, the state, morality, and indeed, all civilization.”
In Re Marriage of Lemere v. Lemere, 2003 WI 67 (Wis. 2003). “Wis. Stat. § 765.001 (1). The broadly-stated general purpose of The Family Code is "to promote the stability and best interests of marriage and the family.”
Patricia Mudlaff v. Joseph McLeod, 2013 WI 76 (Wis. 2013). “The impairment or dissolution of the marriage relation generally results in injury to the public wholly apart from the effect upon the parties immediately concerned.”
Cnty. of Dane v. Norman, 497 N.W.2d 714 (Wis. 1993). “Each spouse has an equal obligation in accordance with his or her ability to contribute money or services or both which are necessary for the adequate support and maintenance of his or her minor children and of the other spouse.”
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012). “The statutory prohibitions or amendments of nineteen of these forty-one states forbid not only same-sex marriage, but any other form of relationship recognition, such as domestic partnership or civil union, between two persons of the same sex.”
McConkey v. Van Hollen, 2010 WI 57 (Wis. 2010). “See Wis. Stat. § 765.001 (2) (2005-06) 19 ("Under the laws of this state, marriage is a legal relationship between 2 equal persons, a husband and wife.”
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. v. Kessler, 388 N.W.2d 553 (Wis. 1986). “The rule promotes the institution of marriage by prohibiting extramarital affairs, consistent with sec. 765.001(2), Stats., which states that marriage is "the institution that is the foundation of the family and of society.”
Watts v. Watts, 405 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. 1987). “) Section 765.001(3) further states that "[c]hapters 765 to 768 shall be liberally construed to effect the objectives of sub.”
In Interest of Angel Lace M., 516 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1994). “" As the dissent eloquently points out, everybody agrees what the best interests are here.”
Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006). “Code § 48-2-104 (c); Wis. Stat. §§ 765.001 (2), 765.01; Wyo. Stat.”
— Wis. Stat. § 765.001(2) — 20 cases
In Re Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer, 2000 WI 132 (Wis. 2000). “001(2) provides a general statutory statement of legislative intent applicable to the four statutory chapters that comprise the Family Code. The statute makes a strong statement`regarding the importance of marriage and family.”
Cnty. of Dane v. Norman, 497 N.W.2d 714 (Wis. 1993). “Each spouse has an equal obligation in accordance with his or her ability to contribute money or services or both which are necessary for the adequate support and maintenance of his or her minor children and of the other spouse.”
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. v. Kessler, 388 N.W.2d 553 (Wis. 1986). “The rule promotes the institution of marriage by prohibiting extramarital affairs, consistent with sec. 765.001(2), Stats., which states that marriage is "the institution that is the foundation of the family and of society.”
In Interest of Angel Lace M., 516 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1994). “" As the dissent eloquently points out, everybody agrees what the best interests are here.”
Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007).
— Wis. Stat. § 765.001(3) — 4 cases
Watts v. Watts, 405 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. 1987). “) Section 765.001(3) further states that "[c]hapters 765 to 768 shall be liberally construed to effect the objectives of sub.”
In Re Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer, 2000 WI 132 (Wis. 2000). “001(2) provides a general statutory statement of legislative intent applicable to the four statutory chapters that comprise the Family Code. The statute makes a strong statement`regarding the importance of marriage and family.”
Patricia Mudlaff v. Joseph McLeod, 2013 WI 76 (Wis. 2013). “The impairment or dissolution of the marriage relation generally results in injury to the public wholly apart from the effect upon the parties immediately concerned.”
In Re Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer, 2000 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
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.