The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Research, Society and Development |
Texto Completo: | https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/27133 |
Resumo: | As harmful as the interference of the State in the field of private life and intimacy is the omission of the Public Power in areas in which timely and effective action is an indispensable condition for the maintenance of the dignity of the human person and other fundamental guarantees, stamped in the Constitution of the Republic, particularly in the spheres in which the state entity is required an obligation to do so. In this article, founded on a bibliographic review, an emblematic case of inertia of the Legislative Power of the Union was presented, by expressly including in art. 1,723 of the Civil Code, and, in part, in Art. 226, § 3, of the CF/88, the limitation of stable union, as a family entity, only in relation to man and woman. In light of this, once regularly provoked, the Supreme Federal Court (STF), through ADIn No. 4,277/DF, applied interpretation according to the Constitution to the aforementioned provisions, in order to also include, in the legal dimension of the married status, the stable union between people of the same sex (homosexuals). To this end, the Court, represented in this article by excerpts from the vote drawn up by the then Minister of the Supreme Court, Celso de Mello, notably from affirming the primacy of the Constitution and fundamental rights and principles, as well as reflections on the function of judicial activism in the exercise of the counter-majority function, in view of the prolonged omission of the public power in relation to groups composed of social minorities. |
id |
UNIFEI_49230d6515d038383e867089f93029ba |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/27133 |
network_acronym_str |
UNIFEI |
network_name_str |
Research, Society and Development |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988La unión estable homoafectiva según la Corte Suprema y la Constitución de la República de 1988A união estável homoafetiva segundo o Supremo Tribunal Federal e a Constituição da República de 1988Unión estableHomosexualesIgualdadNo discriminaciónFunción de contra-mayoria.União estávelHomossexuaisIgualdadeNão discriminaçãoFunção contramajoritária.Stable unionHomosexualsEqualityNon-discriminationCounter-majority function.As harmful as the interference of the State in the field of private life and intimacy is the omission of the Public Power in areas in which timely and effective action is an indispensable condition for the maintenance of the dignity of the human person and other fundamental guarantees, stamped in the Constitution of the Republic, particularly in the spheres in which the state entity is required an obligation to do so. In this article, founded on a bibliographic review, an emblematic case of inertia of the Legislative Power of the Union was presented, by expressly including in art. 1,723 of the Civil Code, and, in part, in Art. 226, § 3, of the CF/88, the limitation of stable union, as a family entity, only in relation to man and woman. In light of this, once regularly provoked, the Supreme Federal Court (STF), through ADIn No. 4,277/DF, applied interpretation according to the Constitution to the aforementioned provisions, in order to also include, in the legal dimension of the married status, the stable union between people of the same sex (homosexuals). To this end, the Court, represented in this article by excerpts from the vote drawn up by the then Minister of the Supreme Court, Celso de Mello, notably from affirming the primacy of the Constitution and fundamental rights and principles, as well as reflections on the function of judicial activism in the exercise of the counter-majority function, in view of the prolonged omission of the public power in relation to groups composed of social minorities.Tan dañina como la injerencia del Estado en el campo de la vida privada y la intimidad es la omisión del Poder Público en áreas en las que la acción oportuna y efectiva es una condición indispensable para el mantenimiento de la dignidad de la persona humana y otras garantías fundamentales, selladas en la Constitución de la República, particularmente en las esferas en las que la entidad estatal tiene la obligación de hacerlo. En este artículo, a partir de una revisión bibliográfica, se presentó un caso emblemático de inercia del Poder Legislativo de la Unión, al incluir expresamente en el art. 1.723 del Código Civil, y, en parte, en el art. 226, § 3, del CF/88, la limitación de la unión estable, como entidad familiar, sólo en relación con el hombre y la mujer. Por lo tanto, una vez provocado regularmente, el Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), a través de la ADIn Nº 4.277/DF, aplicó la interpretación conforme a la Constitución a las disposiciones antes mencionadas, a fin de incluir también, en la dimensión jurídica del Estado casado, la unión estable entre personas del mismo sexo (homosexuales). Para ello, la Corte, representada en este artículo por extractos de la votación elaborada por el entonces Ministro de la Corte Suprema, Celso de Mello, asintió con la cabeza para afirmar la primacía de la Constitución y los derechos y principios fundamentales, así como reflexiones sobre la función del activismo judicial en el ejercicio de la función de contramayoría, ante la prolongada omisión del poder público en relación con grupos compuestos por minorías sociales.Tão prejudicial quanto a ingerência do Estado no campo da vida privada e da intimidade é omissão do Poder Público em áreas nas quais a atuação tempestiva e efetiva é condição indispensável para a manutenção da dignidade da pessoa humana e de outras garantias fundamentais, estampadas na Constituição da República, particularmente nas esferas em que se exige do ente estatal uma obrigação de fazer. No presente artigo, com fundamento em revisão bibliográfica, apresentou-se um caso emblemático de inércia do Poder Legislativo da União, ao fazer constar, expressamente, no art. 1.723, do Código Civil, e, em parte, no art. 226, § 3º, da CF/88, a limitação da união estável, enquanto entidade familiar, somente em relação ao homem e à mulher. Diante disso, uma vez regularmente provocado, o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), por meio da ADIn n º 4.277/DF, aplicou interpretação conforme à Constituição aos mencionados dispositivos, a fim de também abarcar, na dimensão jurídica do estado de casado, a união estável entre pessoas do mesmo sexo (homossexuais). Para tanto, a Corte, representada neste artigo por excertos do voto lavrado pelo então Ministro do Supremo Tribunal, Celso de Mello, notadamente pela afirmação da primazia da Constituição e dos direitos e princípios fundamentais, além de reflexões sobre a função do ativismo judicial no exercício da função contramajoritária, ante a omissão prolongada do Poder Público em relação aos grupos compostos por minorias sociais.Research, Society and Development2022-03-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/2713310.33448/rsd-v11i4.27133Research, Society and Development; Vol. 11 No. 4; e4011427133Research, Society and Development; Vol. 11 Núm. 4; e4011427133Research, Society and Development; v. 11 n. 4; e40114271332525-3409reponame:Research, Society and Developmentinstname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)instacron:UNIFEIporhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/27133/23652Copyright (c) 2022 José Bruno Martins Leão; Horácio Monteschio; Tereza Rodrigues Vieirahttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLeão, José Bruno Martins Monteschio, HorácioVieira, Tereza Rodrigues2022-03-27T17:17:09Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/27133Revistahttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/indexPUBhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/oairsd.articles@gmail.com2525-34092525-3409opendoar:2024-01-17T09:44:57.303866Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988 La unión estable homoafectiva según la Corte Suprema y la Constitución de la República de 1988 A união estável homoafetiva segundo o Supremo Tribunal Federal e a Constituição da República de 1988 |
title |
The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988 |
spellingShingle |
The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988 Leão, José Bruno Martins Unión estable Homosexuales Igualdad No discriminación Función de contra-mayoria. União estável Homossexuais Igualdade Não discriminação Função contramajoritária. Stable union Homosexuals Equality Non-discrimination Counter-majority function. |
title_short |
The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988 |
title_full |
The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988 |
title_fullStr |
The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988 |
title_full_unstemmed |
The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988 |
title_sort |
The homoaffective stable union according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the Republic of 1988 |
author |
Leão, José Bruno Martins |
author_facet |
Leão, José Bruno Martins Monteschio, Horácio Vieira, Tereza Rodrigues |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Monteschio, Horácio Vieira, Tereza Rodrigues |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Leão, José Bruno Martins Monteschio, Horácio Vieira, Tereza Rodrigues |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Unión estable Homosexuales Igualdad No discriminación Función de contra-mayoria. União estável Homossexuais Igualdade Não discriminação Função contramajoritária. Stable union Homosexuals Equality Non-discrimination Counter-majority function. |
topic |
Unión estable Homosexuales Igualdad No discriminación Función de contra-mayoria. União estável Homossexuais Igualdade Não discriminação Função contramajoritária. Stable union Homosexuals Equality Non-discrimination Counter-majority function. |
description |
As harmful as the interference of the State in the field of private life and intimacy is the omission of the Public Power in areas in which timely and effective action is an indispensable condition for the maintenance of the dignity of the human person and other fundamental guarantees, stamped in the Constitution of the Republic, particularly in the spheres in which the state entity is required an obligation to do so. In this article, founded on a bibliographic review, an emblematic case of inertia of the Legislative Power of the Union was presented, by expressly including in art. 1,723 of the Civil Code, and, in part, in Art. 226, § 3, of the CF/88, the limitation of stable union, as a family entity, only in relation to man and woman. In light of this, once regularly provoked, the Supreme Federal Court (STF), through ADIn No. 4,277/DF, applied interpretation according to the Constitution to the aforementioned provisions, in order to also include, in the legal dimension of the married status, the stable union between people of the same sex (homosexuals). To this end, the Court, represented in this article by excerpts from the vote drawn up by the then Minister of the Supreme Court, Celso de Mello, notably from affirming the primacy of the Constitution and fundamental rights and principles, as well as reflections on the function of judicial activism in the exercise of the counter-majority function, in view of the prolonged omission of the public power in relation to groups composed of social minorities. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-03-10 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/27133 10.33448/rsd-v11i4.27133 |
url |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/27133 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.33448/rsd-v11i4.27133 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/27133/23652 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 José Bruno Martins Leão; Horácio Monteschio; Tereza Rodrigues Vieira https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 José Bruno Martins Leão; Horácio Monteschio; Tereza Rodrigues Vieira https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development; Vol. 11 No. 4; e4011427133 Research, Society and Development; Vol. 11 Núm. 4; e4011427133 Research, Society and Development; v. 11 n. 4; e4011427133 2525-3409 reponame:Research, Society and Development instname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) instacron:UNIFEI |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) |
instacron_str |
UNIFEI |
institution |
UNIFEI |
reponame_str |
Research, Society and Development |
collection |
Research, Society and Development |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
rsd.articles@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1797052706889662464 |