Become impossible thinking about the documents of this congressional debates that result in the use for the norm, where the objective to limit domestic partnerships to heterosexual relationships is quite clear (Supremo Tribunal Federal, note 24, pp. 92-3).
The reason why she considers the literal interpretation of the norm to be inadmissible is the fact that the Constitution needs to be recognized as a harmonious entire. Minister Carmen Lucia claims: “Once the proper to freedom is granted … it’s important to ensure the alternative of really working out it. It might make no feeling if exactly the same Constitution that establishes the right to freedom and forbids discrimination … would camrabbit.cim contradictorily avoid its workout by publishing people who wish to work out their directly to make free individual alternatives to prejudice that is social discrimination” (Supremo Tribunal Federal, note 24, pp. 91-4).
Justices adopting the 2nd type of reasoning (b), regarding the other hand, admit that the Constitution will not control same-sex domestic partnerships to see this as a space when you look at 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 because heterosexual domestic partnerships will be the closest type of family members to homosexual domestic partnerships, the principles about heterosexual domestic partnerships needs to be put on homosexual partnerships, by analogy.