Current Version
Region | Suriname |
Issue | Same-sex marriage |
Status | Unrecognized |
Start Date | (unknown) |
End Date | (none) |
Description | In 2023, the Constitutional Court of Suriname assessed the decision of the Central Bureau for Civil Affairs (CBB) not to recognize a marriage of a same-sex couple performed in Argentina and ruled that it did not violate Articles 8 and 17(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, the Court ruled that Article 80 of the Suriname Civil Code, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, must be interpreted to prohibit polygamy rather than same-sex marriage. This interpretation suggests that the article does not inherently conflict with the rights of same-sex couples to marry. |
Sources | https://vids.sr/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Suriname_Civil-Society-Report-FINAL.pdf https://dwtonline.com/lgbtqia-gemeenschap-krijgt-bittere-pil-te-slikken/ https://www.dna.sr/media/19726/burgerlijk_wetboek.pdf https://dwtonline.com/lgbtqia-gemeenschap-krijgt-bittere-pil-te-slikken/ |
👍 NEW: Helpful votes! You can now rate each edit as helpful or unhelpful. Votes add another layer of approval and are an easy way to say thank you to other editors. Helpful votes may become public in the future but unhelpful votes will always remain private.
Revision History (4)
Old Value | New Value (Current) | |
---|---|---|
Value | Banned | Unrecognized |
Start Date | Feb 1, 2023 | (unknown) |
Description | The Constitutional Court of Suriname refused to recognize marriage of same-sex couple which was performed in Argentina. The court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the constitution or Suriname's obligations under the Interamerican Convention on Human Rights. | In 2023, the Constitutional Court of Suriname assessed the decision of the Central Bureau for Civil Affairs (CBB) not to recognize a marriage of a same-sex couple performed in Argentina and ruled that it did not violate Articles 8 and 17(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, the Court ruled that Article 80 of the Suriname Civil Code, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, must be interpreted to prohibit polygamy rather than same-sex marriage. This interpretation suggests that the article does not inherently conflict with the rights of same-sex couples to marry. |
Show Difference | ||
Sources | https://dwtonline.com/lgbtqia-gemeenschap-krijgt-bittere-pil-te-slikken/ | https://vids.sr/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Suriname_Civil-Society-Report-FINAL.pdf https://dwtonline.com/lgbtqia-gemeenschap-krijgt-bittere-pil-te-slikken/ https://www.dna.sr/media/19726/burgerlijk_wetboek.pdf https://dwtonline.com/lgbtqia-gemeenschap-krijgt-bittere-pil-te-slikken/ |
Show Difference |
edited by Unknownmiles. banned is a better status since they refused to recognize the marriage
Helpful?
0 Old Value | New Value | |
---|---|---|
Value | Unrecognized | Banned |
Description | The Constitutional Court of Suriname refused to recognize marriage of same-sex couple which was performed in Argentina. The court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the constitution or Suriname's obligations under the Interamerican Convention on Human Rights. | The Constitutional Court of Suriname refused to recognize marriage of same-sex couple which was performed in Argentina. The court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the constitution or Suriname's obligations under the Interamerican Convention on Human Rights. |
Show Difference |
Old Value (Original) | New Value | |
---|---|---|
Value | Banned | Unrecognized |
Original entry | |
---|---|
Status | Banned |
Start Date | Feb 1, 2023 |
End Date | (none) |
Description | The Constitutional Court of Suriname refused to recognize marriage of same-sex couple which was performed in Argentina. The court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the constitution or Suriname's obligations under the Interamerican Convention on Human Rights. |
Sources | https://dwtonline.com/lgbtqia-gemeenschap-krijgt-bittere-pil-te-slikken/ |