Agence France-Presse via inquirer.net reported on Aug 11, 2010:
A constitutional court in Costa Rica on Tuesday derailed a Catholic Church-supported national referendum on whether the country should grant same-sex couples the right to civil unions.
The vote was scheduled for December 5 and in this highly Catholic country was expected to reject the possibility of granting same-sex couples the same rights as their married counterparts.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the rights of minorities could not be determined by a popular vote and that the issue should be decided by the country's lawmakers.
"Minority rights that are derived from claims against the majority cannot be subject to a referendum process where majorities are needed," the court said in a statement.
The vote sought to ask Costa Ricans whether the Central American country should grant same-sex couples some of the rights of married couples, such as in inheritance, health insurance benefits and the right to family visits in case of hospitalization.
...
Argentina last month became the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage.
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
California's popular vote denying same-sex couples the right to marry was struck down last week and Costa Rica is being proactive enough to not even let it get to the voting stage.
Kudos!
The common thread that runs through these 3 violent and offensive faiths of the Book is CONTROL and DOMINATION. It's never about LOVE or tolerance or inclusion.
Bravo to States/countries like California and Costa Rica for staying secular and taking the real first step toward real equality for humanity.
Another difference is that this Court indicated that it is the duty of the legislative body governing Costa Rica to address this issue, not the people at large. I agree ( not that it matters what I think - or any of us think - Courts should function by lawful authority, not opinion)
I would be very fearful of any country that was simply based on majority rule. Regrettably, too many people base decisions in their life on what they want. Wanting something is not a legal justification.
Prop 8 in California was a response to actions of individual politicians and courts that proclaimed "gay marriage" lawful - not an act of a legislative body. Furthermore, prop 8 simply was clarifying the definition of marriage, so that that what most people would consider obvious was formally defined as a legal relationship existing between a male and a female.
It is nice to see a court do it's job and not overreaching as is the current trend in the USA.
It will be interesting to watch and see if the legislative bodies in Costa Rica pursue establishing civil unions.
As for me, as much as I passively support the concept of civil unions, I would much prefer the government to stop meddling in the personal affairs of its citizenry.
how many of us are now gonna exercise these new rights to get married? how many are gonna adopt or have a little offspring baby before we turn old? can we give up our circuits?
its hard enough to keep up with the Kevin Federlines of this world...
guys, take my advice and marry and have kids when you are young, I was in line with all the other gay daddies at the Stella McCartney clearance sale at the Gap on Madison Avenue in NYC and my kids asked me, hey daddy why are all the other gay daddies all so OLD??? then I looked around me and it was kinda true, even the cute couple from Chelsea who live in that nice Condo in Soho who are only in their early thirties...
there is a new party for Gay Dads this year at Fire Island BTW
support:
http://www.wegiveadamn.org/issues/adoption/
we are the ozettes of atzland and we kick homosexual ass!!!.. see you on next barbera tactics course...
"Last weekend Peter LaBarbera and a host of anti-gay activists held a three day seminar to teach young recruits how to demean, disparage, and fraudulently portray gay people."...
lies, all lies!!! dont read the activists lies in "The Peter’s wackadoodle school exposed"...
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/...
It is interesting to read post 14 and his thought that abortion is a right and to think otherwise is an extremist ideology.
I have never been strong in any social action regarding abortion, but I can see no right delineated in the Constitution of any country that defines the right to an abortion.
To call those who value life extremist is a bit over the top.
I wonder if there was an in-utero test for homosexuality and mothers started aborting their future homosexual children if he would still call being anti-abortion extremist?
Which way do you want it?
Government has certain basic functions, such as preserving order and protecting life and property, as clearly evidenced by the fact the murder is a criminal offense the world over. There are those that would suggest that it is a criminal act of violence against the life of the unborn child.
I think few could truly argue in praise or favor of abortions, as we are probably all pretty glad that our mothers did not make a choice in favor of abortion.
My greater point, as discussed some months ago in reply to some news article about genetic mapping of a cause for homosexuality, I would bet if they did identify a genetic marker many parents would choose abortion, or a genetic repair and then all the "activists" would come out in an uproar.
And what I really want is the government to limit itself to the actions granted to it by the people, as in We the people do ordain and establish the Constitution .... their right to exist and govern is granted by us and they are accountable to us through the Constitution. Regrettably, all too often they have extended their role extra-constitutionally, and exceeded the powers granted to them and the individual states, which have separate powers, delineated in the individual state constitutions.
請先登入再使用此功能。