Chamber of Commerce committee approves project to ban same-sex marriage

The bill banning same-sex marriage was approved by the House of Commons Social Security, Social Assistance, Children, Youth and Families Committee on Tuesday (10th) by a vote of 12 to 5. The document will need to be analyzed by the Committee on Human Rights (CDH) and the Committee on Constitution and Justice (CCJ) before it can be submitted to the full House of Commons.

The rapporteur, Associate Pastor Eurico (PL-PE), submitted a new alternative proposal with changes to the previous text. Despite the changes, the project maintained an explicit ban on same-sex marriage and amended the Civil Code.

The opinion says the project’s language “establishes that no same-sex relationship is comparable to marriage, a stable union, or the existence of a family.”

In 2011, same-sex marriage was deemed constitutional and regulated by a Federal Supreme Court (STF) decision. In its ruling, the court recognized that Article 5 of the Constitution guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry by defining all persons as equal before the law “without any distinction.” .

On the other hand, the representative pastor, Eurico, is of the opinion that same-sex marriages should not have the same legal status as marriages between men and women, because same-sex relationships “do not have the special effect of procreation on society.” claims. This justifies the regulation of marriage and the special protection it affords the state. ”

Pastor Eurico’s argument is that because homosexuals do not have children, “homosexual relationships bring no social benefits” and cannot contribute to “generational change.”

The lawmaker also cited Article 266 of the Constitution, which states that a stable union is recognized between a man and a woman.

The project was harshly criticized by members of the Diet, who at one point abandoned the session in protest. Congresswoman Laura Carneiro (PSD-RJ) regretted that this project would disenfranchise the LGBTI+ population.

“We’re talking about 80,000 married families, thousands of people who have a right to this relationship and want to receive all the benefits and receive social security and all civil rights. “Couples can’t take advantage of each other’s health insurance. What kind of country are we building?” he asked.

“The interpretation and requirements of marriage and stable union in this Code are strictly construed and no similar extensions are permitted,” the deputy added in a substitute opinion.

In addition to prohibiting same-sex marriage, the approved text states that the law “does not interfere with the standards and requirements of religious marriage, a definition that is the responsibility of each religious community, and with any restrictions on marriage. It contains the following content: “You must not do so.” Violations of the pastor’s confessional, religious, and temple rules are prohibited. ”


The rapporteur even introduced something new to his opinion by including in the text a proposal for a new chapter of the Civil Code entitled “On societies of communal living”, but he went back and deleted this chapter.

The proposed article provides for the distribution of property and assets of people who “maintain a relationship of mutual coexistence and interdependence in any circumstances other than those provided for in Article 226 of the Federal Constitution, and as distinct from the institution of marriage.” It regulates contracts related to

Initially, Eurico argued that the new section sought to meet the demands of lawmakers opposed to the issue by allowing same-sex couples to establish rules regarding property rights through contracts. However, the topic caused discomfort among lawmakers who supported the original project. As a result, the session was suspended for 30 minutes and the excerpt from the chapter “On communal living societies” was removed from the final report.

For Rep. Laura Carneiro, the change was because the committee recognized that the new section would allow the formation of formal romantic relationships with more than two people, known as polyamory. “After reading it, they realized that polyamory was emerging. Today (Tuesday) morning’s transfer allowed polyamory. In an hour, a new replacement will arrive,” he stressed. did.

*The article was revised at 5:03 p.m. to correct and add the reporter’s views.

Source link

Leave a Comment