GayLawNet^®

National

As at 1997, the age of consent for consensual sexual activity for women was 12 years and for men 14 years [R1.1].

National

In 2007, discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation was made unlawful [R1.1].

Colombia's 1991 constitution promises equal rights for all citizens [R1.2].

Courts & Tribunals

In September 1998, the Constitutional Court ruled that schoolteachers cannot be fired for revealing they are gay [R2.1].

In April 1998, the Constitutional Court ruled that private religious schools cannot ban gay students [R2.2].

National

In 1981, consensual sex between same-sex couples was decriminalised [R1].

Courts & Tribunals

In November 1999, the Joint Committee of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogota (whose decision is final and obligatory) ruled that the judicial authority that must hear claims that involve economic disputes involving living or deceased homosexual couples is the judge of the District's Civil Court [R1.1].

In March 1999, the 6th Family Court of Santafe de Bogota ruled that Cristian had to be recognized as the sole inheritor of Dagoberto's possessions because he "had been the man’s partner by default after having lived in a gay relationship that had lasted more than four years" [R1.2].

National

On 11 December 1998, the first marriage contract with full legal rights between two homosexual men took place at Notary Office #46 of Santafe de Bogota (where heterosexual civil marriages also take place), the capital of Colombia [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 14 July 1999, the Constitutional Court ruled unanimously that the armed forces cannot bar homosexuals. The existing ban violated gay soldiers' constitutional rights to intimacy, free development of one's personality, and defence of one's family. [R1.1].

National

In August 2003, Colombia decided to abandon its plans to legalise same sex relationships [R1.1].

See: 2. Courts & Tribunals below.

Previously:

In April 2003, the Colombian National Senate discussed the same-sex union bill (Project 043): "To recognize same-sex unions, its patrimonial effects and other rights" was drafted jointly by Senator Piedad Córdoba and LGBT activists [R1.2].

The bill would have recognized the existence of same-sex unions and the State's duty to protect them. To enter a same-sex union both partners would have needed to be of legal age, having lived together for at least two years and not be related by marriage or de facto union to someone else.

Unions would have had to be registered - and also dissolved - at Notaries. Those who wished to unify their assets would have had to draft a separate document to that aim. Assets acquired or inherited while the union was in force, would have been shared by both partners, as well as the products of joint work.

Partners entering a same-sex union would also have had rights to:

1. Social security benefits on the same basis as de-facto unions
2. Inheritance rights on the same basis as de-facto unions
3. Workplace legislation benefits
4. Make health-care related decisions when the other partner is unable to do so
5. Mutual insurance benefits
6. Mutual alimony

Jails and prisons would have had to grant the same benefits to same-sex union partners that are currently enjoyed by straight couples.

Same-sex union partners would have been included in all aspect of current legislation against domestic violence.

Article 8 was a non-discriminatory clause, making illegal to discriminate against any person based on "their sexual identity, gender or orientation".

Article 9 affirmed that the State has the duty to guarantee freedom of association among "persons of sexual orientation and gender identity that differs from that of the straight majority".

Article 10 mandated that the Education Ministry and its dependencies review school curricula at all levels to eliminate homophobic contents and to incorporate "clear and objective information about sexual orientation and gender identity" to the current sexual education materials. The same is required of State funded sexual and reproductive health services.

Courts & Tribunals

In March 2009, Head of Colombia Diversa Marcela Sánchez said that compliance with the court decision "is not automatic, and we have to demand government measures to help the content of the ruling overcome prejudices, and to assist people who don’t know how to use what they have never had" [R2.1].

In January 2009, the Constitutional Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples in Colombia are entitled to the same rights as straight couples in common-law marriages [R2.2].

In April 2008, Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the government must extend pension benefits to same-sex partners, finding that to exclude same-sex partners would violate the principle of non-discrimination and human dignity as the expression of personal autonomy, protected by international law [R2.3].

Previously:

In 1996, the Colombian Constitutional Court was reported to have ruled that Lesbian and gay couples are barred from health, retirement and other state benefits granted to straight couples [R2.4].

On 11 October 2001, the Colombian Supreme Court issued a verdict in favor of conjugal visitation rights for Alba Nelly Montoya, a lesbian in prison, and her partner [C2] [R2.5].

The Court mandated that the director of Risaralda Women´s Prison - where Ms. Montoya is carrying her sentence - make all necessary arrangements for the lesbian visit to take place, in conditions that are equal to those of heterosexual visits, ruling that depriving lesbian inmates of conjugal visits violates their constitutionally protected rights to privacy (Article 15 of the Colombian Constitution), to freedom from discrimination based on sex, and to equality before the law (Article 13 of the Colombian Constitution).

The judges also stated that allowing conjugal visits to lesbian women in prison--under the same conditions of privacy and security required for heterosexual visits--constitutes no threat to the prison regime or to the well-being of other inmates or visitors, including children.

In November 2002, a judge in Manizales finally granted Marta Alvarez, a lesbian imprisoned in Caldas, visitation rights from her partner in Manizales [R2.6].

In granting the petition the judge invoked women's rights to equality, privacy and free development of their personalities.

Previously:

In May 2002, despite the Supreme Court decision in the Montoya Case (above) the Armenia Women's Jail continued to deny the right to conjugal visitations to the female partner of inmate Ms. Marta Lucia Alvarez Giraldo [R2.7].

The Marta Alvarez case (#11656) was heard at the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights (IAHRC) on October 1, 1999, after all legal recourses in Colombia had been exhausted over the preceding five years

Courts & Tribunals

In 2007, the Constitutional Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples must have the same property rights as opposite-sex couples. In that case the court carefully noted the decision did not automatically permit civil unions. Colombia's Congress then passed legislation giving same-sex couples most of the same rights as opposite-sex married couples but the bill died in a procedural move by conservative senators. [R1.1].

In November 1999, the Joint Committee of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogota (whose decision is final and obligatory) ruled that the judicial authority that must hear claims that involve economic disputes involving living or deceased homosexual couples is the judge of the District's Civil Court [R1.2].

Courts & Tribunals

In October 2008, the Constitutional Court ruled that a five-year-old child born with both female and male genitals be allowed to choose their own gender [R1.1].