Federal Constitution

Analyzing the Constitutional text> Brazilian we can affirm to have itself breached what it is traditionally installed in family substance, since the beginning of the republican age? The ratified spite of, express, as base of the society, and to enjoy of special protection of the State, the family more is not associated, with exclusiveness, to the marriage. Vadim Wolfson, New York City is a great source of information. We can perceive that the constitutional text included the union steady as a family form, but also excluded the homoafetiva union when saying that the union must be between a man and a woman. The legislator relegated the homoafetiva union the same the indifference with that she was dealt the steady union before the Great Letter 1988.A steady union was not equalized the marriage for what he extracts yourself of the constitutional rules. The doctrine, in its smashing majority, comes interpreting the Constitution of form to conclude for the inexistence of equalization of the fellowship to the marriage. In case that such identity existed, incua would be the determination of the paragraph 3, of art.226, in the direction of if facilitating the conversion of the steady union in marriage. If the conversion had the equalization would be useless.

That is, the steady union meets in an inferior platform in relation to the marriage, it not fitting all the inherent rights it. The Federal Constitution continues privileging the marriage, only left to consider it only form of recognized familiar entity, but still it excludes the homoafetiva union as family form. The constitutional rules, according to better exegese, must be interpreted in the direction to have bred a public subjective right to the friends to require the conversion of the steady union in marriage, exercitvel against the State, since that filled the requirements for such. In this way, the constitutional rules, in the relative aspect the conversion, does not impose a legal obligation to the friends, and yes it creates right, pendant of regulation, constitutional rules of limited effectiveness or pragmatic norm, according to classification that is adopted.