Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

Login

Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

11 Aug 2010

Rights of minorities not to be determined by popular vote: Costa Rica court

Costa Rica's top court on Tuesday ruled that a planned public referendum on same-sex civil unions is illegal thus blocking the electoral tribunal from holding a referendum that would have let voters decide if same-sex civil unions should be allowed in the largely Roman Catholic country.

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.

Costa Rica

Reader's Comments

1. 2010-08-11 23:04  
Finally, the powers that be are starting to get it. You can't grant or withhold civil rights at the ballot box.

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!
2. 2010-08-12 00:52  
Signs of intelligent life.
3. 2010-08-12 00:58  
It's always the 3 offensive faiths of the Book at work to destabilize world harmony. If it's not about offending their god, it's about their god given right to occupy someone else's land cos their god said so or that Adam and Steve should not have the same equal rights to eat apples just like Eve and Lilith.

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.
4. 2010-08-12 03:27  
We hope after Argentina, Costa Rica and Chile will continue the right trend!
5. 2010-08-12 05:12  
Just to be clear. It was the Federal (US) level court that overturned the California law. So this was just not applicable to California, but may be applied to the entire US.
6. 2010-08-12 05:27  
Very happy, the world is becoming a better place (soon).
7. 2010-08-12 06:06  
i remember costa rica had a gay teen murder last year that got a lot of attention. and after that finally there was some debate on the homophobia that yet prevails. This is great news. Vamos Costa Rica, todos juntos podemos cambiar las cosas:)
8. 2010-08-12 06:26  
This is a very different circumstance than the issue at hand in California with proposition 8. First, it is was not about redefining the institution of marriage, it was about allowing civil unions, which presumably would offer the same benefits offered to heterosexuals in a state of marriage. ( The article does not go into any detail about those issues)
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.
9. 2010-08-12 08:56  
#5 is right... we should not be "applauding" California. They did nothing. It was a US Federal District judge who actually invalidated California's decision and ruled it unconstitutional. I do applaud California's Supreme Court for initially striking down the gay marriage ban, but since that state's constitution has a provision that the people can vote and overturn a supreme court decision (a dubious law, to be certain), the Federal courts had to step in, whose decisions trump state law.
10. 2010-08-12 12:19  
Support Chile and Costa rica realize same-sex marriage legal or same-sex civil unions!!
11. 2010-08-12 16:19  
first comes love, then comes marriage then comes a little one in a baby carriage, the hot new issue is global gay adoption...gay marriage as the hot button issue is kinda passe already

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/

12. 2010-08-12 17:49  
cool smoke!!!...lets use laguna for anti age anti scene...kuman...deceit/false logic...jboy...caricature...

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/...
13. 2010-08-13 00:34  
@7 I really can't remember any teen gay murdered last year in Costa Rica (Costa Rica is still the most secure country in the region), and the debate on homophobia started in 2006 with the introduction of the gay civil union contract law proposal and adoptions.
14. 2010-08-13 01:55  
The referendum itself was not supposed to either grant or deny anything other than give the President of Costa Rica, Laura Chinchilla, a chance to deny that she is a anti-gay bigot. She not only opposes gay marriage and adoption but basic womens rights including abortion and the morning after pill. By proposing a referendum in an overwhelmingly Catholic country, she could be claiming to represent popular opinion rather than her extremist ideology. Good for the courts, recognizing their own function as being the guardians of individual and group rights sometimes against majority opinion where warranted.
15. 2010-08-13 04:51  


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?

Comment #16 was deleted by its author on 2010-08-13 06:34
17. 2010-08-13 08:07  
The description of extremism is addressed to the President's intense social conservatism, particularly regarding gay issues -- which she does parade publicly. Her opposition to abortion is viewed within that context and such opposition standing alone as a single viewpoint does not constitute an extremist mindset. Look her up online, it is not a happy task for any gay citizen of Costa Rica.
Comment edited on 2010-08-13 08:10:48
18. 2010-08-13 08:16  
Kuman.. you say you want government off our backs and out of our personal lives. I assume that is true too between a woman and her doctor.
Which way do you want it?
19. 2010-08-13 11:26  
Maxi - As I stated, I have no strong opinion or action on abortion issues. I was primarily stating that opposition to abortion is not generally considered to be an extremist point of view. I think there is legitimate room for discussion to call abortion a basic womens' right.

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.
20. 2010-08-15 09:35  
positive news out of Costa Rica, laws should be made for good reason not just because of some ones religious point of view, it is good sence...I wish it would happen here more often too..we do live in a world of wonderful possibilities and we see that happen though often intermittently. one day we my well see an alternative to medieval heterosexual marriage as the only model one where gays straights monogomists and polygamists can all share equal access and social/legal rights
Comment edited on 2010-08-15 10:14:22

Please log in to use this feature.

Social


Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook

Partners

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement