Christian conservatives outraged as Costa Rica 'accidentally' legalises gay marriage

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Belfast Telegraph

Christian conservatives outraged as Costa Rica 'accidentally' legalises gay marriage
By TIM WALKER – 06 July 2013

Costa Rica may have set a remarkable precedent – by being the first to allow same-sex unions by mistake.

This week, the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly voted for a change to its “Law of Young People”, which covers social services and marriage laws.

It was only once the bill had passed did unwitting conservative lawmakers realise that their liberal counterparts had inserted language that could open the door to civil unions for gay couples.

The controversial wording was written into the legislation by José María Villalta, a member of the left-wing Frente Amplio party.

“During the discussion in the first debate, we explained that the Law of Young People should be interpreted with this sense of opening to gays and no one objected,” Villalta said afterwards. Given the lack of perceived opposition to his amendment, he proceeded to insert it into the bill. The text, which previously stated that only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognised, now extends “the right to recognition without discrimination contrary to human dignity.”


Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/christian-conservatives-outraged-as-costa-rica-accidentally-legalises-gay-marriage-29399827.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

1. That's right up there with Texas accidentally making ALL marriage illegal.

[Tx4obama]

3. Shhhhhhhhh :) n/t

[They_Live]

12. hee hee

I saved a copy of that ballot, just for the wording. But yeah, it's a secret.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. And miss out on the comedy???

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5700676-503544.html

[Kurovski]

2. Hmmm. That's a very nice accident.

Plus it pissed off the bogus pretenders in the god-squad.

[Arugula Latte]

4. Once again Religion stands counter to progress and human freedom.

Humanity needs to dump that superstitious nonsense once and for all.

[TxDemChem]

7. That just kills me...separation of church and state

As an atheist, they piss me off every time they try to legislate using God or the Bible. These people who are do quick to talk crap about Sharia law when they are similarly guilty of the same mentality.
And if one more person mentions Biblical marriage, I'll have to remind them to remember the story of my namesake. That was a polygamist union. That's traditional marriage if you ask me (two can play the ridiculous game of accusing the other of redefining marriage). And let's not get into dowries, rapes that lead to marriage and concubines.

[LiberalFighter]

14. After some research I came up with this info.

I did the research after a Governor and others were stating that marriage was a sacred institution that was over 2000 years old.

The following are two separate responses I replied to someone regarding the issue of marriage in my locale.

Marriage was an arrangement between two families in ancient Rome. And they did not have any legal force. That was the traditional marriage of that time period. They were not married by any priest.

The Roman Catholic Church did not have a Christian wedding ceremony/rite until the 12th century. Paul who wrote more than half of the New Testament told his followers "It is better not to marry." Not exactly the type of statement to make if marriage was a sacred institution. Marriage was not encouraged by the Christians of that era.

Traditional marriage as viewed by church followers now has not been in existence for the 2,000 years as everyone claims. Christian wedding ceremonies were not part of the Roman Catholic Church practice or considered a sacrament until the 12th century. In addition, priests were not necessary as part of the wedding until the 1900's. Basically everything that everyone knows about the traditional Christian marriage is a fallacy. Instead the so called traditional marriage has been in existence for less than 900 years. A relatively new ceremony.

If Bishop Rhoades considers marriage to have a unique and special meaning then why doesn't the Catholic Church prefer their priests to be married? Why wasn't there any specific marriage rite by the early church? Why was it the Roman Empire that instituted marriage w/o any connection to Christianity beliefs? Why did the Roman Catholic Church not have any Christian wedding ceremony until the 12th century? Why was it that priests were not necessary as part of the wedding until the 1900's?

Traditional marriage had nothing to do with religion. It was a community's legal arrangement to determine settlement of property.

If marriage is as sacred as stated then why did Paul, the writer of most of the New Testament tell his followers, "It is better not to marry." If it truly is a sacred institution it should had been encouraged instead of discouraged during early Christianity.

So traditional marriage as viewed by church followers has not been in existence for 2,000 years. Rather it has been in existence for less than 900 years. A relatively new ceremony.

[TxDemChem]

21. Awesome info.

I had forgotten about Paul's statement regarding marriage. I never knew how our modern idea of marriage started. Looks like they may want to change their arguments. I look forward to doing further research and putting all this info in my arsenal.

[LiberalFighter]

22. If you get anything worthwhile let me know.

By the way consider this too. Moses lived under Egyptian rule with their laws. He was supposedly born around 1525 BC and fled Egypt about 1487 BC. They received their laws and the 10 Commandments. The Jews/Israelites were without laws for more than 2500 years? That is suspicious.

The Code of Hammurabi is dated about 1772 BC. About 285 years before the Exodus. If a comparison is made of the Exodus laws and the Code of Hammurabi there will be many similarities. The Code of Hammurabi influenced legal matters during that time period and after just as Egyptian rule influenced Moses.

[TxDemChem]

25. I recall learning about the code of Hammurabi

As far as I have learned, that is where my dad's code of ethics is founded. He used to be a right- winger, but has decided in the passed decade to denounce all that. He has turned into a golden rule type of guy. I like the recent version of him far better!

[RILib]

23. Paul was a little weird

I always thought.

[TxDemChem]

26. I cannot deny that.

But he did seem more believable than others in the Bible. I will give him a B for effort.

[Shadowflash]

9. Yup.

[sarcasmo]

11. +1

[mountain grammy]

20. Agree.

[delrem]

5. wouldn't it be nice if

for once
we cleared all the assholes from the room
so cut the shit.

All marriages are equal.

Enough said.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Any old excuse

to post :

[Iliyah]

8. OOPS

[Jerry442]

10. Accidentally? LOL

A lawmaker's apology to his constituents: "Well, I was alone, late at night, with a bill. I'd been under a lot of stress and I'd had a couple of drinks. I didn't really plan for it to happen, but before I knew it, I'd slipped that clause into the bill. I'm so ashamed."

[Lucky Luciano]

13. Any legislation that outrages mainly Christian/Jewish/Muslim conservatives

is probably a good law by default.

[SHRED]

15. truth

[Orsino]

16. As they tend to enjoy outrage for its own sake, such laws are win-win. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Right wingers are angry because many wingnuts had been praising Costa Rica as a refuge / retirement.

[Ash_F]

18. Latin America getting ahead of the US on this. /nt

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Christian conservatives outraged

In other news, water is wet.