1 2 Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations of the US. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.
↑ Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights in Israel. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
↑ A "declaration of family relationship" is available in several of Cambodia's communes which may be useful in matters such as housing, but is not legally binding.
↑ Guardianship agreements confer some limited legal benefits in China, including decisions about medical and personal care.
↑ Hong Kong provides inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
In 2025, a court ordered the government to register the marriages of two same-sex couples and instructed the state to modify its laws regarding marriage to comply with international treaties.[1]
Civil unions
Suriname does not recognize civil unions which would offer a subset of the rights and benefits of marriage. Unlike the Netherlands, it also does not offer any legal protection to same-sex couples living in informal cohabitation (Dutch: samenwonen; Sranan Tongo: libi nanga makandra), including with regard to limited financial benefits such as for tax and pension purposes.[2]
Same-sex marriage
Background
The Constitution of Suriname does not explicitly ban same-sex marriage, nor does it mention the institution of marriage as a whole. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees the right to found a family: "The family is recognized and protected."[3] However, article 80 of the Civil Code states: "By marriage, a man can only be married to one woman, and a woman can only be married to one man."[a]
In a 2014 report issued to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, four LGBT advocacy groups wrote, "Family laws in Suriname define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. LGBTI persons are not allowed to marry persons of the same sex. Considering that same-sex marriage is illegal, same-sex couples cannot be granted other rights which would result from such a legal union. Among other things, they therefore cannot inherit property or goods from a deceased partner as married opposite-sex couples can. In the recent Pension Act, married and unmarried opposite-sex couples are entitled to the pension of their deceased partner. Even though the Pension Act does not explicitly exclude same-sex partners of the same rights as opposite-sex partners, the Government has publicly stated in Parliament that the Pension Act would not include same-sex partnerships."[5] In July 2024, Ebu Jones, an MP from the National Democratic Party, said that "Suriname society must sooner or later address" the issue of same-sex marriage. Interim Minister of Justive David Abiamofo stated in the National Assembly that same month that same-sex marriages are not allowed under Surinamese law.[6]
2018 Inter-American Court of Human Rights advisory opinion
The State must recognize and guarantee all rights derived from a family bond between persons of the same sex in accordance with the provisions of Articles 11.2 and 17.1 of the American Convention. (...) in accordance with articles 1.1, 2, 11.2, 17, and 24 of the American Convention, it is necessary to guarantee access to all the existing figures in domestic legal systems, including the right to marry. (..) To ensure the protection of all the rights of families formed by same-sex couples, without discrimination with respect to those that are constituted by heterosexual couples.
Suriname ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on 12 November 1987 and also recognized the court's jurisdiction that same day.[11] LGBT activists responded to the advisory opinion by calling on the government to legalize same-sex marriage, though said they believed the "country's not ready for LGBT rights".[12]
2023 Constitutional Court ruling and aftermath
On 31 January 2023, the Constitutional Court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the Constitution or Suriname's obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights. However, the court also found that the Civil Code was outdated and needed to be modernized following public debate. This lawsuit was filed by two same-sex couples who had married abroad and sought recognition of their marriages back home in Suriname. One of the couples, who remained anonymous, had married in Argentina in 2018 after nearly 35 years together, but the Central Bureau for Civil Affairs (Centraal Bureau voor Burgerzaken) had refused to recognize their Argentine marriage license. Following the decision, the couple said it was "very remarkable and strange that the Constitutional Court [has] ignore[d] the judgment of the American Court of Human Rights". Likewise, local human rights activist Carla Bakboord said "it is incomprehensible that the Constitutional Court [has] come to such a ruling. When the Court is abundantly clear about discrimination and the subordination of Surinamese legislation to that of international treaties, you do indeed expect the review to turn out to be different from this. I am very surprised."[13]
On 13 February 2025, Judge Shanti Bikhari ruled that the government must register the marriages of the two same-sex couples within seven days in the registers of the Central Bureau for Civil Affairs. The court held that the refusal of the government to register the marriages conflict with international treaties to which Suriname is a party, and ordered the state to work on amending Surinamese legislation regarding this matter. Although the government has the right to appeal the ruling, the judgment was immediately enforceable and had to be implemented within seven days. For each day beyond the deadline, a penalty of SRD 10,000 per day must be paid to the couples, up to a maximum of SRD 1 million.[14] Juan Pigot of the Parea foundation called the ruling "a nice, beautiful victory" and called on the Parliament to "incorporate this court ruling into the new Civil Code"; "Now that we have a court decision, and with elections coming up, we hope that political parties supporting the LGBTQI+ community will see this ruling as a standard. This is the time to bring it to the attention of the National Assembly. They now have the opportunity to correct their major mistake."[15]
Two-spirit marriages
It is believed that the indigenous Lokono people traditionally recognized two-spirit individuals, known as bian üya, who were born male but adopted women's roles in the community, including tending to the home and cooking. It is unknown if the bian üya were historically allowed to marry, as there is little literature on the Lokono two-spirit structure.[16] Social attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex marriages are unknown among the Wayana.[17]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
LGBTQportal 
