Entry #12197: Same-sex marriage in Suriname

Current Version

RegionSuriname
IssueSame-sex marriage
StatusUnrecognized
Start Date(unknown)
End Date(none)
DescriptionIn 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.
Sourceshttps://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)

edited by Nathan. Fixed status. Info and sources added

Helpful?
0
Old Value New Value (Current)
ValueBannedUnrecognized
Start DateFeb 1, 2023(unknown)
DescriptionThe 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
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.
Sourceshttps://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
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/

edited by Unknownmiles. banned is a better status since they refused to recognize the marriage

Helpful?
0
Old Value New Value
ValueUnrecognizedBanned
DescriptionThe 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
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. Suriname's obligations under the Interamerican Convention on Human Rights.

edited by Markissik. More accurate status

Helpful?
0
Old Value (Original) New Value
ValueBannedUnrecognized

created by Markissik

Helpful?
0
Original entry
StatusBanned
Start DateFeb 1, 2023
End Date(none)
DescriptionThe 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.
Sourceshttps://dwtonline.com/lgbtqia-gemeenschap-krijgt-bittere-pil-te-slikken/