Become impossible taking into consideration the documents regarding the debates that are congressional cause the use for the norm, where the objective to restrict domestic partnerships to heterosexual relationships is quite clear (Supremo Tribunal Federal, note 24, pp. 92-3).
The reason why she considers the literal interpretation with this norm to be inadmissible is the fact that Constitution should be grasped being a harmonious entire. Minister Carmen Lucia claims: “Once the proper to freedom is granted … it is important to make sure the alternative of actually working out it. It could make no feeling if the exact same Constitution that establishes the right to freedom and forbids discrimination … would contradictorily avoid its workout by publishing people who wish to work out their straight to make free individual alternatives to social prejudice and discrimination” (Supremo Tribunal Federal, note 24, pp. 91-4).
Justices adopting the next type of reasoning (b), regarding the other hand, admit that the Constitution doesn’t manage same-sex domestic partnerships and determine this as being a space within the text that is constitutional.
The right to form a family, that gap must be filled by analogy since it would be against basic constitutional principles and fundamental rights to completely deny homosexual individuals. And since heterosexual domestic partnerships will be the closest kind of family members to homosexual domestic partnerships, the principles about heterosexual domestic partnerships should be put on homosexual partnerships, by analogy.
At first it could perhaps perhaps maybe not look like most of a big change, but this argument renders room for difference between heterosexual and homosexual domestic partnerships, as they are perhaps maybe maybe not regarded as being exactly the same, just comparable. Continue reading