TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Court upholds status quo on interfaith marriage
The Constitutional Court's rejection of a petition against the Marriage Law, at least the third since 2012, maintains the lack of clarity in three provisions that have led to the law's prevailing interpretation as banning interfaith marriage.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Stock illustration of wedding rings (Unsplash/Courtesy of Samantha Gades)
T
he Constitutional Court on Tuesday upheld ambiguous provisions in the Marriage Law that often hinder interfaith marriages and make it hard for couples of different religions to formalize their union.
The court rejected a petition filed by a private citizen that requested it to review the law toward annulling three provisions, which regulate that a marriage is legitimate only if it is conducted in accordance with an individual’s religion.
The law neither admits nor prohibits marriage between people of different religions, but the three provisions noted in the petition often foster resistance to interfaith marriage. This is because religious institutions often do not allow their adherents to marry a partner of a different belief, which has hindered many interfaith couples from registering their marriages.
At the same time, the law regulates that a marriage between two people of different faiths is prohibited if their religions forbade them such a union.
In the court’s ruling issued on Tuesday, the bench argued that the law authorized religious institutions to declare the legality of a marriage, and that the state only dealt with registering marriages that had been deemed legitimate by religious institutions in order to guarantee marital rights.
The justices thus concluded that the provisions named in the petition did not intend to harm religious freedom or the right to marry and found a family.
The provisions in question “do not contradict the principles that guarantee the right of worship and belief, equality before law and government, the right to live and be free from discriminatory treatment, as well as the right to form a family and procreate", Constitutional Court justice Wahiduddin Adams read out the ruling.
