no legally recognized

[rainous]

"Common-law marriage is a form of interpersonal status that is legally recognized in limited jurisdictions as a marriage even though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry."

Am I right to think that "no legal recognized" apply to the three different phrases that follow?

The structure seems a bit weird to me. Is that grammatically correct?

[Raymott]

"Common-law marriage is a form of interpersonal status that is legally recognized in limited jurisdictions as a marriage even though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry."

Am I right to think that "no legal recognized" apply to the three different phrases that follow?
Yes. "no" refers to all three. "legally recognised" is only necessary for the first. The second and third are legally recognised by definition - but they are not done in this case.

The structure seems a bit weird to me. Is that grammatically correct?
Yes.

It might look a bit weird because it's such a long sentence without any commas.
"It's legally recognised even though no legally recognised A is performed, or B is entered into, or C is entered."
That is, there is no A or B or C.