A constitutional court in Costa Rica halted the referendum process that was supposed to put same-sex marriage on December’s voter ballot, acting on an appeal “presented by an individual identified only by the last names, Quirós Salazar, alleging that the referendum violates the rights and freedoms of individuals. The referendum was to have let the population decide the fate of a proposal for law that would allow same sex marriages in Costa Rica. Opponents to the referendum have argued that leaving the allowing the majority of the population (93%) which is heterosexual would be a constitutional violation of the 7% of the homosexual population.”
Dan
But the constitutional court ruled against gay people previously, saying the CR constitution doesn’t let them get married so the only way to have marriage equality is to put it to a vote in Costa Rica. So, stopping the vote is a way for the court to prevent equal rights, yet again.
Paschal
@Dan: The costitutional court previously ruled that marriage equality for gay people wasn’t mandated by the constitution. The legislature and president can still legalise it if they so wish.
Shaun
@Dan Having a referendum decide people’s rights creates a dangerous precedent.
Who Cares
Time to boycott Costa Rica as a gay tourist destination…
wmcarpenter
“alleging that the referendum violates the rights and freedoms of individuals.”
how?
Shaun
@wmcarpenter: Having the people vote on minorities’ rights may result in Tyranny of the Majority. Wherein the minority in question is refused a right merely because of the bigotry of the majority.
hannah
“leaving the allowing the majority of the population (93%) which is heterosexual would be a constitutional violation of the 7% of the homosexual population.”
Finally. I have been waiting for this concept to actually stop the ridiculous voting on people’s rights. I hope the vote is blocked indefinitely. It needs to become a precedent for States to follow (though unlikely). I speak to so many people that don’t understand how dangerous and unconstitutional this voting process is. Regardless of one’s own belief on homosexuality, the majority should never have the ability to take away the rights of a minority group. I learned this in Junior High school where we discussed slavery and the civil rights movement. I was 13. It shouldn’t be so hard to think of every minority group having the same rights. Isn’t “freedom for all” one of the great virtues of our nation? What happened?
Okay, rant over.
My Gay Rant
The only fundamental difference between a straight and gay relationship resides in matters if intercourse, which in my relationship is only a subsidiary part of the bond we share. We fight like heterosexuals, share ups and downs like heterosexuals, and do stupid things like heterosexuals. Gay relationships are no better or worse than straight relationships…. they are just “relationships.” I don’t have room in a comment box to explain my position too thoroughly… check out my blog by clicking on my name above to see my more detailed response to this issue.
Charles B
@Who Cares: Um, no. This is a good thing. You don’t want the general population to vote on the rights of a minority. Look what happened when they did that in California.
Charles B
@My Gay Rant: You are so right. Marriage is about SO MUCH MORE than sex, as you said. When two straight people say they want to get married, people don’t stop and think “oh, they are going to have sex”. But when gays want to get married, that’s the first thing that comes to mind–sex. People don’t like the thought of gay sex, so they think that by not allowing gay marriage, it will end gay sex. Illogical.
alan brickman
I wonder what would happen to African Americans if this was a ballot in the 60’s???….
alan brickman
Charles is right…
John (CA)
“Majoritarian opinion can often be harsh to minorities that exist outside the mainstream. It is precisely the function of the Constitution and the law to step in and counteract rather than reinforce unfair discrimination against a minority. The test, whether majoritarian or minoritarian positions are involved, must always be whether the measure under scrutiny promotes or retards the achievement of human dignity, equality and freedom.”
(Quoted from the Constitutional Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in South Africa)
They said it better than I ever could. And it is good that the courts in Costa Rica are also putting the brakes on this ballot initiative madness. Meanwhile, the retarded voters of America are still debating whether Thurgood Marshall – the man who brought down school segregation – was an evil “activist judge.” You know, because he cared about social justice for minorities. Clearly, no one would want to follow in the footsteps of that monster.
jdclarke
Just to clear this up, marriage IS NOT being discussed in Costa Rica, the article from Inside Costa Rica is wrong. They have a track record of distorting information about LGBT rights.
What is under discussion is a civil unions law. The Constitutional Court has previously ruled against gay marriage, but has said that there DOES exist unequality, and that it should be fixed with a new law that is not marriage.