Handelskade district of Willemstad, the capital of Curacao.
Wikimedia Commons/Matthew T. Rader
Sign up for the Gay City News email newsletter to get news, updates and local information delivered straight to your inbox.
This month, the global movement towards recognising the rights of LGBTQ couples continued around the world, with the Dutch Supreme Court ordering the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the Caribbean islands of Aruba and Curacao and South Korea’s Supreme Court ruling in favour of health insurance coverage for same-sex couples.
The Dutch Supreme Court’s ruling upheld an earlier ruling by the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba. In December 2022, the court ruled that Aruba and Curaçao must recognize marriages between same-sex couples, but Aruba and Curaçao subsequently appealed the ruling, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, according to the Curaçao Chronicle.
Prior to the latest ruling, the governments of Aruba and Curaçao were already required to recognize marriages performed in the Netherlands as part of Dutch national policy that requires same-sex marriage to be recognized throughout the Kingdom of the Netherlands. But now LGBTQ marriages can be performed in Aruba and Curaçao. In the Dutch island of Bonaire, which is a special municipality, LGBTQ couples have been able to marry since 2012.
The Aruban non-profit organization Fundacion Orguyo Aruba initially filed the lawsuit along with the Curacao-based charity Human Rights Caribbean Foundation.
“Today we stand at a historic moment for LGBTQ+ rights – not only for justice and equality in Aruba and Curacao, but around the world,” the Orguyo Aruba Foundation said in a statement. “Our journey towards equality began in 2019, driven by the belief that love and commitment should have no limits or prejudice.”
While the group criticized lawmakers for failing to advance marriage equality through legislative means, it expressed gratitude that “equal rights prevailed and the courts have found that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional.”
“This historic decision by the Supreme Court is proof that when we come together, we can achieve progress even in the face of adversity,” the group added.
Meanwhile in South Korea, activists have welcomed the ruling by their country’s Supreme Court, saying it could be a further step forward for the movement for same-sex marriage rights.
South Korea’s Supreme Court has ruled that refusing to allow same-sex couples to be listed as dependents under the National Health Insurance scheme because of their gender constitutes discrimination that violates people’s “dignity and values, right to the pursuit of happiness, freedom of privacy, and right to equal treatment under the law.”
The case first emerged in 2021 when plaintiff Seo Sung-wook filed a lawsuit seeking to be registered under the health insurance system as a dependent of his partner, believing that their relationship should be treated like a common-law marriage.
But his hopes were dashed when South Korea’s health insurance system rejected his request and ordered him to pay monthly premiums. After a district court upheld that decision, an appeals court in 2023 overturned a lower court ruling, saying the couple were eligible for health insurance coverage even though they were not in a common-law marriage.
Amnesty International, which filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in February, hailed the ruling as “a historic victory for equality and human rights in South Korea.”
“While this ruling is a major milestone, the case itself is a reminder of the lengthy legal process same-sex couples must endure to secure fundamental rights that should be universally guaranteed,” Boram Jang, East Asia researcher at Amnesty International, said in a statement. “It is disappointing that in 2024 same-sex couples still face significant barriers to equality. South Korea should continue to embrace equality, diversity and inclusion, and ensure that all LGBTI individuals in the country have equal access to healthcare and social security.”
