O direito fundamental à igualdade no contexto da identidade sexual no Brasil: um estudo da situação jurídico-constitucional com ênfase no exame da suposta inconstitucionalidade por omissão do legislador civil
This dissertation analyses the Brazilian Supreme Court’s judgement in the Non-compliance Action of the Fundamental Precept 132/RJ and in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality 4277/DF, which created in the country the same-sex civil union. In This decision, the STF interpreted according to the...
Na minha lista:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Formato: | Dissertação |
| Idioma: | por |
| Publicado em: |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Endereço do item: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/20312 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | This dissertation analyses the Brazilian Supreme Court’s judgement in the Non-compliance
Action of the Fundamental Precept 132/RJ and in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality
4277/DF, which created in the country the same-sex civil union. In This decision, the STF
interpreted according to the constitution Article 1.723 of the Civil Code, invoking several
fundamentals reaffirmed in the Constitution. From all these laws invoked by the Supreme
Court to support the pretorian creation, the content of consitutional Law regarding equality is
the only that corresponds, and it is sufficient to evidence the necessity of the creation, by
legislator, of the institute for civil rights, since the Constitution forbids distinctions that is not
expressly provided for in the Constitution (Art. 3º, IV, of Federal Constitution). In this way,
Article 226, § 3º is not an exception capable of satisfying the condition of the consitutional
foresight because although it protect, according its content only the civil union “between the
man and the woman”, it is not able to forbid the creation, by legislator, of another kinds of
families, including the same-sex civil union. As such, the reasoning, now legitimate
according to the legislator, is not support the creation of institute by Constitutional Court,
because the Court may enforce the Law, interpreting in the purviews allowed by the legal text
and its constitutionality. In regard to the civil union of individuos of the same sex, the Court
could not deduce that such union was implied by Law, like the interpretation according to the
Constitution given by judges, on grounds of semantic purviews of the words man and woman,
existents in both articles. The Court could not created it either, exceeding the legal system
role. So, upon the institute creation, the STF, exceeded two limits: the interpretation and Law
enforcement. |
|---|