OK, I found this really funny. The news is a couple of weeks old, but I hadn’t heard of it before.
Quoted from the article:
*“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.”
“Outraged Christian conservatives have demanded that Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla, pictured, veto the legislation when it crosses her desk. But Ms Chinchilla has refused to oppose the bill’s passage. Once the bill is approved by the President, it will likely face challenges in the country’s courts, which it is expected to lose.”*
Well, maybe the law will be struck out in the end (although I have heard that at least a same-sex couple has managed to get approval to solemnise their union, so if they hurry they may get it)… But I still find it hilariously funny – Why are you complaining, conservative lawmakers? If you are holding a vote on a law, make sure somebody reads it first! XD XD XD
Why in the world should it lose the challenges? Just as there’s a strong presumption you’ve read any contract you sign, there too should be a strong (IMO, irrebuttable) presumption that any legislator has read and assents to any bill he or she votes for.
From what I have read about the matter, it seems that the law deals with things related to people between 15 and 35 years of age (after all, the title of the law itself is “Law of Young People”).
So, I would imagine that (ironically) an argument that conservatives could make in front of the Costa Rican equivalent of the Supreme Court would be that the law itself introduces unfair discrimination, because it only allows people younger than 35 years old to enter into same-sex marriage (you are 36 years old? Tough titties! Or not. But well, you understand what I mean).
That kind of discrimination because of age might not fly, from a constitutional point of view.
And, again… I think it would be beyond hilarious if the conservatives had to argue that the law does not allow same-sex marriage for everybody who is legally allowed to marry in order to get rid of it XD XD
(Now, I hope that the law in question stays, and that later same-sex marriage can be extended to the over-35 population. But still, I find the whole situation funny beyond words).