The Supreme Court should be thought about a solution that is temporary pending statutory regulation because of the Legislature (Supremo Tribunal Federal, note 24, pp. 111-2, 182).
Exactly What this closer analysis regarding the justices’ viewpoints programs is the fact that, though it continues to be an undeniable fact that the six to three almost all the justices would not make any explicit distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual domestic partnerships, this time is never as uncontroversial as a vote that is unanimous.
Besides, perhaps the systematic interpretation thinking endorsed by most of the justices is certainly not outright pro same-sex marriage. The pleading introduced to your Supreme Court framed the matter as a concern of whether same-sex partnerships that are domestic families for appropriate purposes. This implies not only this there’s absolutely no ruling about same-sex wedding by the Supreme Court, but also that, since wedding just isn’t essential to form a household underneath the legislation, issue of wedding does not even incidentally show up within the views of justices that use the systematic interpretation thinking. Perhaps the justices’ argument implies the ability to marry is a concern of interpretation, which are often controversial when it comes to a number of the viewpoints.
Justice Ayres Britto, as an example, identifies the proven fact that the earlier Constitution considered wedding since the way that is only form a household underneath the legislation, unlike the present Constitution, which considers wedding as you of numerous how to do so, to ensure that marriage and 
domestic partnerships are very different, but create equivalent outcome, that is, the synthesis of a family group beneath the legislation (Supremo Tribunal Federal, note 24, pp. 46-7).
In the event that result that is relevant the forming of a family group, and that may be accomplished through domestic partnerships, does it follow that equality is pleased by the acknowledgement of the right to create same-sex domestic partnerships? The solution to this relevant real question is not clear.
Justice Marco Aurelio states that the impossibility that is total of a household would stall the life span plans of homosexual people and would, consequently, be described as a breach of the individual dignity (Supremo Tribunal Federal, note 24, p. 212).
Would the general impossibility of forming a household by wedding additionally be a breach of human being dignity? The solution is, once again, confusing.
II. Same-sex wedding during the Superior Court of Justice
Approximately five months following the ruling for the Supreme Court ended up being granted, the Superior Court of Justice tried the situation of two women that had been rejected a married relationship permit regarding the foundation that wedding is just permitted between a person and a female.
The situation reached the court being an appeal from two past judicial choices against the plaintiffs. The few argued which they had been eligible to a married relationship permit since being associated with exact same intercourse is maybe maybe not detailed as an impediment to wedding within the Civil Code.
The statutory guideline being challenged isn’t the identical as in the constitutional instance, while they’ve been both guidelines through the exact exact exact same statute, that is, the Civil Code.
It can be argued that the proper getting hitched and, consequently, the proper to be granted the necessary license is simply a consistent aftereffect of the ruling because of the Supreme Court, in line with the indisputable fact that, because the Constitution determines that exact exact same intercourse domestic partnerships could be changed into marriage therefore the exact exact exact same rules connect with either heterosexual or homosexual domestic partnerships, it creates no feeling to state that same-sex wedding is lawfully impossible. In that case, since a ruling because of the Supreme Court when you look at the abstract is binding on officials in charge of issuing marriage licenses, there wouldn’t in fact be instance when it comes to Superior Court of Justice to listen to.