Talk:Same-sex marriage in Brazil

Rio Grande Do Sul

According to this article, same-sex marriage was authorized in Rio Grande do Sul: http://www.databufpb.com.br/noticia-290-saiba-direito-tribunal-de-justica-do-rio-grande-do-sul-autoriza-casamento-civil-homoafetivo.html

Can somebody look into it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco76bor (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the judge ruled in favor of same sex marriage. The reasoning he gave is a broad interpretation of previous legal decisions. In a nutshell, since previous courts have attempted to recognize the rights of same sex couples in civil unions, there is really no reason why same sex couples should not able to actually marry. However, I do not know if the district judge has the authority to change the law for the entire state. We need more information about effective implementation before adding this state. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

CNJ approves resolution urging notary celebrating gay marriage nationwide in Brazil

CNJ approves resolution urging notary celebrating gay marriage nationwide

Does this mean that we can update the same-sex unions in Brazil page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.196.151 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

According to AFP, the council's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court. See [1]. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So what?Gay marriage is legal as of today in Brazil.Whether or not it can be challenged says nothing on the validity of the law.This was also the case in Spain where it was legal from 2005 and was challenged in the Supreme Court last year but was ultimately upheld.Brazil should immediately enter the list.

There should be a new page Same Sex Marriage in Brazil MKleid (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the situation is similar to Spain. Add it to the map. --Smart (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why has the header column removed Brazil from the list of countries where same-sex marriage is legal nationwide? Are we waiting for the official ruling to be released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of the term civil union

Well, it is not a thing of bishops. It was always standard Brazilian usage to regard the formal name of marriage as "união civil" (the first source I added says "a boa e velha união civil"). It was this way at least since the late 50s; I saw both of my grandmothers' certificates, and there it said they were in the regime of união civil, the maximum possible in Brazil. It changes the "estado civil" of the person from solteir@ (single) to casad@ (married). After the união civil ends, living persons may become divorciad@s (divorced) or viúv@s (widow).

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, Brazilian religious marriage is a completely separated institution, and of responsability of the independent religious affiliations Brazilians may have (I never heard of statistics about that – unlike Australia, where about 30% of marriages are known to be enshrined by a religious ritual –, btw).* The official religion of most of the 19th century and before, Roman Catholicism, was entirely disconnected from the government in the coup that installed the first Republic, but at this time other religions were still very minoritary and connected mostly to European Brazilian, Indigenous Brazilian and Afro-Brazilian communities, whose at times de facto and at others official governmental policy toward was assimilation (add Christian sectarianism, institutionalized ethnocentrism/racism and white privilege to the situation of the latter ones), and to a few urban intellectuals (you know I mean Spiritism) that were repressed by the social situation of that time. It is a history different from most Anglosphere countries, who didn't divorce so harshly their religious elements from their governemnts, such as England that still has an official church.

• Obviously, though, we may give it clear in our "união civil" register that it is a termo de religioso com efeito civil ("religious event with civil validity"). For it to happen, a religious marriage has to be a public event, testimonies have to sign it as a happening, and the newlyweds have to notarize it within 90 days from the issuing of the paper by the temple. If those requirements aren't met, a religious marriage isn't recognized and their união civil will be in the secular standard (as did those of my grandmothers, even if at least my maternal one married as a Roman Catholic). http://www.casamentocivil.com.br/index.php?page=casamento-religioso-com-efeito-civil

So, our bishops wouldn't have a say in our SE-CU-LAR definition of marriage, enshrined by the State with a word that isn't even the same used for the Christian rite, doesn't matter how much they want. It is the journalists that clearly referred to the Court decision over the fate of the uniões civis, the bishops just pitied that the government gives same-sex unions the same legal standing of families (what was already done since 2011) into marriage (nationwide since 2013) inside the same kind of institution (inb4 "zOMG hellish equaliteh, zeh ghey shuldn b regarded as doin' the same of us sane decent citizens into godly srs bzns!11!!1! we will fade from existence as society, civilization, race from such devilish works of you heretic atheists!11!!1! dats the devil behind this!11! with love RACC").

União estável was created by much more recent legislation, and it is the Brazilian equivalent to marriage-like unions existent in other countries. It may be created by proving cohabitation, family formation (shared bank account, a child, etc.), or by getting a certificate of it. Uniões estáveis are not as strong as uniões civis, that require for example widows to receive at least a part of the inheritance. União estável may be arranged as a contract, like in other countries, but it is generally mostly or completely automatic and the Brazilian regime of união parcial de bens (neither separação de bens nor união total de bens) is assumed, meaning it is easier to divorce and that relatives may contest not only part of inheritance but the place of the partner in the heirdom at all.

It is confusing, because people now wrongly assume (even in media) that Brazil never did have união civil as our marriage is full and we don't have a different system for same-sex couples... what is void, união civil is not an equivalent to união estável or união de facto in the Anglosphere and Europe, it is our legal term for marriage since many decades past, and translating união estável as civil union will only lead to confusion (the união civil *marries* people, the união estável does not, they are single persons with a contract). Lguipontes (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a general problem of course; how to separate the civil ceremony from the religious one. In some countries only the civil ceremony is considered the "true ceremony" (as in the Netherlands, where the religious ceremony is a "confirmation" o the civil one), and other cultures, which state that the country is not in a position to decide about things like marriage, as it is a personal right (like in many US states). It would be good, if both are used in Brazil, to use at least "civil marriage", and not use just "marriage", which is confusing.

However, I don't agree with the fact that Brazil has no civil marriage. I know the high court spoke about equating the stable unions for same sex and opposite sex couples, but in its interpretations of this judgement, the corregadores generales always said the principles should also apply to marriage (casemento). See e.g. here: "Considerando o princípio advindo da decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal, na ADI 4277/DF, que passou a admitir a habilitação direta para o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo sem a necessidade do prévio reconhecimento da união estáv" and here here: "Estado do Ceará, Diário da Justiça Eletrônico. 8 March 2013. pp. 8–12. "Os Cartórios de Registro Civil de Pesso as Naturais do Estado de Sergipe deverão receber os pedidos de habilitação para casamento de pessoas do mesmo sexo, procedendo na forma do artigo 1.526 da Lei nº 10.406/2002"". Also the law they refer to is the marriage law here speaks about casemento (marriage). Am I seeing something wrong? L.tak (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but your post doesn't explain too much. I think that's your personal judgment, nothing more. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I've found marriage certificate ("Certidão de Casamento") and marriage registration application forms. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

L.tak, it seems now by what you and Ron provided we have 4 different things. União estável, união civil (the way marriages were called for a time), casamento civil (the way marriages are called now) and casamento religioso (a separated ceremony, that may be used depending on the circumstances to issue a paper with civil marriage validity).

Ron, it is not just my personal judgement. 2002 is very recent, still at the same time internet access and information over those legal matters weren't such a common thing when I was a 7-year-old kid so it passed me without notice, and the whole thing seems to have changed since the 20th century then, what makes sense (that is why people refer to união civil in weird ways; the one my grandparents had married them). When my parents thought of marrying in the 90s, it was still called união civil.

Still, not using the term civil union seems appropriate, as it historically is another thing here, and casamento civil and união civil are used as synonymous (the same sort of institution for legal purposes, it is just that the legislation was updated). The link I provided and the one L.tak derived their interpretation hinted this very clearly, it equalized união civil for both kinds of couple. Lguipontes (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)