Become impossible thinking about the records regarding the debates that are congressional cause the use of this norm, where the objective to restrict 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 understood as being a whole that is harmonious. Minister Carmen Lucia claims: “Once the proper to freedom is granted … it’s important to ensure the likelihood of really working out it. It can make no feeling if exactly the same Constitution that establishes the right to freedom and forbids discrimination … would contradictorily avoid its workout by publishing people who desire to work out their directly to make free individual choices 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, acknowledge that the Constitution will not control same-sex domestic partnerships and determine this as a space into 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 kind of family members to homosexual domestic partnerships, the principles about heterosexual domestic partnerships needs to be put on homosexual partnerships, by analogy.