Entry #12197: Same-sex marriage in Suriname

Current Version

RegionSuriname
IssueSame-sex marriage
StatusForeign same-sex marriages recognized only
Start DateFeb 13, 2025
End Date(none)
DescriptionOn February 13, 2025, the District Court ordered the Central Civil Affairs Bureau (CBB) to register the marriage of two same-sex couples who married abroad. The ruling, regardless of whether the State appeals or not, must be implemented immediately. The case was filed with the court in October 2023.
Sources2025 court ruling:
https://www-dbsuriname-com.translate.goog/2025/02/14/uitspraak-in-civiele-zaak-inzake-inschrijving-huwelijken-partners-hetzelfde-geslacht-bij-cbb/

https://www.culturu.com/nieuws/suriname/rechter-dwingt-cbb-om-huwelijken-van-gelijkgeslacht-in-te-schrijven/
https://abcsuriname.com/kantonrechter-oordeelt-cbb-moet-homo-stellen-inschrijven-in-huwelijksregister/
https://www.nu.nl/buitenland/6345855/suriname-moet-na-vonnis-homo-echtparen-inschrijven-bij-burgerlijke-stand.html

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/


Revision History (6)

edited by DaisyGeekyTrans. Removing information moved to past entry.

Helpful?
0
Old Value New Value (Current)
DescriptionOn February 13, 2025, the District Court ordered the Central Civil Affairs Bureau (CBB) to register the marriage of two same-sex couples who married abroad. The ruling, regardless of whether the State appeals or not, must be implemented immediately. The case was filed with the court in October 2023.

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.
On February 13, 2025, the District Court ordered the Central Civil Affairs Bureau (CBB) to register the marriage of two same-sex couples who married abroad. The ruling, regardless of whether the State appeals or not, must be implemented immediately. The case was filed with the court in October 2023.
Show Difference
On February 13, 2025, the District Court ordered the Central Civil Affairs Bureau (CBB) to register the marriage of two same-sex couples who married abroad. The ruling, regardless of whether the State appeals or not, must be implemented immediately. The case was filed with the court in October 2023. 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. 2023.

edited by Nathan. Foreign SSM recognized, added sources

Helpful?
0
Old Value New Value
ValueUnrecognizedForeign same-sex marriages recognized only
Start Date(unknown)Feb 13, 2025
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.On February 13, 2025, the District Court ordered the Central Civil Affairs Bureau (CBB) to register the marriage of two same-sex couples who married abroad. The ruling, regardless of whether the State appeals or not, must be implemented immediately. The case was filed with the court in October 2023.

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
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. On February 13, 2025, the District Court ordered the Central Civil Affairs Bureau (CBB) to register the marriage of two same-sex couples who married abroad. The ruling, regardless of whether the State appeals or not, must be implemented immediately. The case was filed with the court in October 2023. 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://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/
2025 court ruling:
https://www-dbsuriname-com.translate.goog/2025/02/14/uitspraak-in-civiele-zaak-inzake-inschrijving-huwelijken-partners-hetzelfde-geslacht-bij-cbb/

https://www.culturu.com/nieuws/suriname/rechter-dwingt-cbb-om-huwelijken-van-gelijkgeslacht-in-te-schrijven/
https://abcsuriname.com/kantonrechter-oordeelt-cbb-moet-homo-stellen-inschrijven-in-huwelijksregister/
https://www.nu.nl/buitenland/6345855/suriname-moet-na-vonnis-homo-echtparen-inschrijven-bij-burgerlijke-stand.html

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://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/ 2025 court ruling: https://www-dbsuriname-com.translate.goog/2025/02/14/uitspraak-in-civiele-zaak-inzake-inschrijving-huwelijken-partners-hetzelfde-geslacht-bij-cbb/ https://www.culturu.com/nieuws/suriname/rechter-dwingt-cbb-om-huwelijken-van-gelijkgeslacht-in-te-schrijven/ https://abcsuriname.com/kantonrechter-oordeelt-cbb-moet-homo-stellen-inschrijven-in-huwelijksregister/ https://www.nu.nl/buitenland/6345855/suriname-moet-na-vonnis-homo-echtparen-inschrijven-bij-burgerlijke-stand.html 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 Nathan. Fixed status. Info and sources added

Helpful?
0
Old Value New Value
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/