Costa Rica's gay rights activists have sought a different path than those in the US

[pampango]

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/costa-rica/100817/gay-marriage-same-sex-civil-unions

Meanwhile, in Costa Rica, the country's high court ensured that the battle over gay rights won’t be fought through the ballot box. A public referendum on recognizing same-sex civil unions was set for December. Proponents had submitted enough signatures — at least 5 percent of the electorate — to hold the vote. But on Aug. 10, the Supreme Court canceled the referendum.

So why is the Costa Rican lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) community ecstatic? Because those opposed to recognizing same-sex weddings were almost certain to win a referendum as opinion polls in this predominantly Catholic country indicate that the vast majority see gay rights as contravening traditional family values.

Civil rights advocates are pleased as well. They feared the conservative-backed plebiscite would amount to a discriminatory populist rule over what they see as a core civil rights issue and end the chance for same-sex couples seeking civil unions. (The debate here centers on civil unions. There is little support for legalizing gay marriage, as the institution of marriage is still widely regarded as a sacramental bond reserved only for a man and a woman.)

The Supreme Court seems to have sided with the civil rights activists. In its ruling, the court said, “The majority considered that the rights of minorities borne out by struggles against majorities cannot be subjected to a referendum process where the majority rules."

[xchrom]

1. As it should be. Nt

[Catherina]

2. Rec'd!!!

“The majority considered that the rights of minorities borne out by struggles against majorities cannot be subjected to a referendum process where the majority rules."

[racaulk]

3. Did you hear that, Linda Lingle?

K&R!