Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Same Sex Couples - Comparative Insights on Marriage and Cohabitation pp 13–48Cite as

And the Story Comes to an End: The Constitutionality of Same-Sex Marriages in Spain

  • Chapter

  • 1033 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 42))

Abstract

In January 2005 the Spanish Government introduced a bill amending the Civil Code to allow same-sex marriage. The bill was approved in July of 2005 with a small majority and the Conservative Popular Party challenged the new Act’s constitutionality before the Spanish Constitutional Court. In 2012 the Constitutional Court decided the challenge upholding the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage statute. This chapter presents an overview of the debate on the constitutionality of Act 13/2005. It discusses the constitutional basis for the enactment of the statute as well as the arguments presented to challenge its constitutionality. It also presents a brief comparative analysis between the Spanish decision on same-sex marriage and the decision by the Constitutional Court of Portugal in the same issue.

This chapter is part of a PhD thesis to be submitted by the author at the Faculty of Law of the University of Copenhagen. With the exception of the provisions of the Spanish and Portuguese Constitutions, translations from the Spanish and Portuguese languages are done by the author.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The expressions “same-sex marriage” or “gender-neutral marriage” are used indistinctly, acknowledging that the notion of “sex” refers to a biological category whilst “gender” is a social construct. See further SCHUSTER, A.: “Gender and Beyond: Disaggregating Legal Categories” in Schuster (Ed.): Equality and Justice: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the XXI Century, Editrice Universitaria Udinese srl, Udine, Italy, (2011), p. 31 and ff.

  2. 2.

    Act 13/2005, of 1st July, amending the Civil Code with regards to the right to marry. Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) N. 157, of 2nd July 2005, pp. 23632–23634.

  3. 3.

    Appeal against constitutionality nr. 6864-2005, relative to Act 13/2005, of 1st July, amending the Civil Code with regards to the right to marry. Accepted for consideration by decision of the TC of 25th October 2005. Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE) N. 273 of 25th November 2005, pp. 37313–37313.

  4. 4.

    Report of the Council of State n. 2628/2004, of 16th December 2004, available at http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=CE-D-2004-2628. The Council of the State is an advisory body which main duty is issuing reports and opinions on legislative drafts. See further, on the Council of the State, SÁNCHEZ NAVARRO, Á.J.: Consejo de Estado, función consultiva y reforma constitucional, Reus, Madrid, (2007).

  5. 5.

    Study on the amendment of the Civil Code regarding marriage between persons of same sex, of 26th January 2005, available at http://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder-Judicial/Consejo-General-del-Poder-Judicial/Actividad-del-CGPJ/Informes/Estudio-sobre-la-reforma-del-Codigo-Civil-en-materia-de-matrimonio-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo. The General Council of Judiciary is the ruling body of the Judiciary and one of its functions is issuing reports on legislative drafts. This report was particularly against the enactment of the Act 13/2005, based on its possible unconstitutionality and on its “inconvenience,” although there was an important number of dissenting votes against the decision of the majority of the CGPJ. See further on the General Council of the Judiciary, its composition and functioning, BALLESTER CARDELL, M.: El Consejo General del Poder Judicial: su función constitcional y legal, Consejo General del Poder Judicial, Madrid, (2007).

  6. 6.

    Report issued by the Royal Academy of Jurisprudence and Legislation relative to the bill amending the Civil Code with regards to the right to marry, of 14th March 2005, available in Anales de la Real Academia de Jurisprudencia y Legislación Núm 35 (2005) pp. 939–941

  7. 7.

    See, LÓPEZ AGUILAR, J.F.: “Los criterios constitucionales y políticos inspiradores de la reforma del Derecho Civil en materia matrimonial”, Actualidad Jurídica Aranzadi núm. 655 (digital edition), (2005).

  8. 8.

    STC 198/2012, of 6th November 2012. STC is the usual abbreviation to refer to a judgment by the TC, while ATC is the usual abbreviation for a writ. Both abbreviations are hereinafter used in this chapter. The judgments and writs of the Spanish Constitutional Court are available at http://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/HJ/en.

  9. 9.

    The expressions “principle of heterosexuality” (also “heterosexual principle” or “heterosexual element”) and “heterosexuality” to refer to gender diversity in marriage are used by the TC in its case law and, often, by the Spanish legal scholarship. These expressions will also be used in this Chapter, even though they are not totally accurate. The so-called “principle of heterosexuality” refers to marriage conceived as a bilateral relationship where gender diversity is one of its elements, but it does not directly refer to the sexual orientation of the spouses.

  10. 10.

    See STC 81/1982, of 21st December 1982 and STC 128/1987 of 16th of July 1987.

  11. 11.

    Some authors like GAVIDIA SÁNCHEZ, have considered sexual orientation within the ground of sex and, hence, included in the expressly mentioned grounds of Article 14 CE. However, discrimination based on sex is clearly different from that based on sexual orientation, and therefore an opposite-sex marriage where both husband and wife have the same rights and obligations seems in accordance with the ground of sex as mentioned in the Article 14 CE. Those, either men or women, who experience an attraction to people of their same sex are the ones affected by a regulation allowing only opposite-sex marriages, because of their sexual orientation. See further GAVIDIA SÁNCHEZ, J.V.: “La libertad de elegir como cónyuge a otra persona del mismo sexo y de optar entre el matrimonio y una unión libre (análisis crítico de la constitucionalidad del matrimonio homosexual y del llamado divorcio express)” in Gavidia Sánchez (Ed.): La reforma del matrimonio (Leyes 13 y 15/2005), Marcial Pons, Madrid, (2007), pp. 25–77.

  12. 12.

    MARTÍN SÁNCHEZ, M.: Matrimonio homosexual y constitución, Tirant lo Blanc, Valencia, (2008), pp. 90–100.

  13. 13.

    See, inter alia, the cases of the ECtHR: Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, of 21 December 1999, para. 28; S.L. v Austria, of 9 January 2003, para. 37; E.B. v. France, of 22 January 2008, paras. 91, 93.

  14. 14.

    See, inter alia, Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, of 24 June 2010.

  15. 15.

    See MARTÍN SÁNCHEZ, M.: Matrimonio homosexual y constitución, op.cit. pp. 35–100 and FERNÁNDEZ SEGADO, F.: El Sistema Constitucional Español, Dykinson, Madrid, (1992), pp. 190–209.

  16. 16.

    MARTÍN SÁNCHEZ, M.: Matrimonio homosexual y constitución, op.cit. p. 99.

  17. 17.

    See STC 148/1985 of 25th November and FERNÁNDEZ SEGADO, F.: El Sistema Constitucional Español, op.cit. pp. 190–209. FERNÁNDEZ SEGADO points out the possibility of “discriminating by no establishing differences”, which would occur if the legislature did not establish different legal consequences to different factual situations. This approach has never been followed by the TC.

  18. 18.

    Following this interpretation, MARTÍN SÁNCHEZ, M.: Matrimonio homosexual y constitución, op.cit. See also STC 337/1994, of 23rd December 1994.

  19. 19.

    See further, decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa Minister of Home Affairs and Another v. Fourie and Another (CCT 60/04) [2005] ZACC 19; 2006 (3) BCLR 355 (CC); 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC) (1 December 2005).

  20. 20.

    For an opposite point of view, see MARTÍN SÁNCHEZ, M.: Matrimonio homosexual y constitución, op.cit., pp. 100–111.

  21. 21.

    See, e.g. DS Congreso de los Diputados N. 78 of 17th March 2005 available at http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L8/CONG/DS/PL/PL_078.PDF.

  22. 22.

    In a similar way, GAVIDIA SÁNCHEZ, J.V.: La libertad de elegir como cónyuge a otra persona del mismo sexo y de optar entre el matrimonio y una unión libre (análisis crítico de la constitucionalidad del matrimonio homosexual y del llamado divorcio express), op.cit., pp. 32–37.

  23. 23.

    This way of challenging the constitutionality of an Act is named cuestión de inconstitucionalidad, literally “question of unconstitutionality”. See further FERNÁNDEZ SEGADO, F.: El Sistema Constitucional Español, op.cit. p. 1082 and ff and PÉREZ ROYO, J.: Curso de Derecho Constitucional, Marcial Pons, Madrid, (1998), p. 691 and ff.

  24. 24.

    ATC 505/2005, of 13th December 2005, ATC 508/2005, of 13th December 2005, ATC 59/2006, of 15th February 2006 and ATC 12/2008, of 16th January 2008.

  25. 25.

    The term “institute” is, broadly, used within the field of private law and “institution”, most often, within the field of public law. However, for the purposes of this Chapter, the terms “institute” and “institution” will be used to refer to marriage indistinctly, as well as the expressions “institutional guarantee”, “guarantee of institution” or “guarantee of institute.”

  26. 26.

    This was supported by Appeal 6864-2005 and the Reports of the CGPJ and the RAJL.

  27. 27.

    In the same way: GARCÍA RUBIO, M.P.: “Viejos y nuevos apuntes sobre la constitucionalidad del matrimonio homosexual” in Álvarez González (Ed.): Estudios de Derecho de Familia y Sucesiones (dimensiones interna e internacional), Fundación Asesores Locales, Santiago de Compostela, (2009), pp. 171–197 and ASÚA GONZÁLEZ, C.I.: “El matrimonio hoy: sus perfiles jurídicos ad intra y ad extra”, Teoría y Derecho. Revista de Pensamiento Jurídico, vol. 2, (2007), pp. 7–27.

  28. 28.

    Traditionally, the rules for interpretation of norms have been introduced in the Civil Code, but these rules must comply with the CE, as this is hierarchically superior. However, and even though, the TC is only subject to the CE and the Organic Act of the Constitutional Court (LOTC), these criteria may be used, and are actually used, by the TC. See further BALAGUER CALLEJÓN, M.L.: Interpretación de la Constitución y ordenamiento jurídico, Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, (1997), pp. 78–80. See also ALONSO GARCÍA, E.: La interpretación de la Constitución, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid, (1984), pp. 77–84, where the author is of the opinion that the TC could use and create new criteria for interpretation. Cfr, the Report of the CGPJ, p. 23.

  29. 29.

    In a same way, although with different conclusions, GAVIDIA SÁNCHEZ has supported that the reference to the gender diversity in Article 32 CE is a special rule from the Article 14 CE. Therefore, without this reference to “man” and “woman” an opposite-sex only marriage would be unconstitutional by virtue of the equality clause of the Article 14 CE, see GAVIDIA SÁNCHEZ, J.V.: La libertad de elegir como cónyuge a otra persona del mismo sexo y de optar entre el matrimonio y una unión libre (análisis crítico de la constitucionalidad del matrimonio homosexual y del llamado divorcio express), op.cit., p. 29.

  30. 30.

    Appeal 6864-2005, FJ 1.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., FJ 2. Las Decretales is actually Canon Law.

  33. 33.

    ASÚA GONZÁLEZ, C.I.: “El matrimonio hoy: sus perfiles jurídicos ad intra y ad extra”, op.cit. pp. 17–18.

  34. 34.

    In a similar way, although to support different arguments, DE PABLO CONTRERAS, P.: “La Constitución y la Ley 13/2005, de 1 de julio, de reforma del Código Civil en materia de derecho a contraer matrimonio” in Martínez de Aguirre Aldaz (Ed.): Novedades legislativas en materia matrimonial, Consejo General del Poder Judicial, Madrid, (2008), p. 72.

  35. 35.

    Act 30/1981, of 7th July 1981.

  36. 36.

    MARTÍNEZ DE AGUIRRE ALDAZ, C. and DE PABLO CONTRERAS, P.: “National Report: Spain”, Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, vol. 19, 1 (2011), p. 294.

  37. 37.

    GAVIDIA SÁNCHEZ, J.V.: La libertad de elegir como cónyuge a otra persona del mismo sexo y de optar entre el matrimonio y una unión libre (análisis crítico de la constitucionalidad del matrimonio homosexual y del llamado divorcio express), op.cit., pp. 24–25.

  38. 38.

    ALBALADEJO, M., Derecho Civil I, introducción y parte general, pp. 150–153.

  39. 39.

    Appeal 6864-2005, FJ 1.

  40. 40.

    See DS Congreso de los Diputados N. 72 of 23rd May 1978, pp. 2610 and ff; N. 107 of 11th July 1978, pp. 4073 and ff. See also DS Senado N. 45, of 29th August 1978, pp. 2000 and ff; N. 61, of 28th September 1978, pp. 3042 and ff. Reports of the debates of both the Congress and the Senate can be found at http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/Publicaciones?_piref73_2342619_73_1340041_1340041.next_page=/wc/refrescarLegislatura.

  41. 41.

    DS Congreso de los Diputados N. 107, of 11th July 1978, pp. 4074 and ff.

  42. 42.

    The two members were López-Bravo y De Castro and Mendizábal Uriarte Alianza Popular changed the name to Partido Popular (PP) some years later. It is, therefore, the same party that appealed against the constitutionality of the Act 13/2005.

  43. 43.

    Also in the Report of the CGPJ, p. 19.

  44. 44.

    BALAGUER CALLEJÓN, M.L.: Interpretación de la Constitución y ordenamiento jurídico, op.cit. pp. 80–83.

  45. 45.

    STC of 1st November 1981, regarding Commercial Law.

  46. 46.

    STC of 13th February 1981, regarding “freedom of chair” in universities.

  47. 47.

    STC of 20th July 1981, regarding Tax Law. On the use of the historical criterion by the TC, see further ALONSO GARCÍA, E.: La interpretación de la Constitución, op.cit. pp. 148–153.

  48. 48.

    As GARCÍA RUBIO pointed out, taking the idea from the Canadian Constitutional Court, the Constitution would be a “living tree”, GARCÍA RUBIO, M.P.: Viejos y nuevos apuntes sobre la constitucionalidad del matrimonio homosexual, op.cit., p. 180.

  49. 49.

    It is also central in the Preamble of Act 13/2005.

  50. 50.

    Barómetro de Junio. Estudio n° 2568 de junio de 2004, Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.

  51. 51.

    From 2005 to 2011, 22.124 same-sex marriages were contracted in Spain, source: National Institute of Statistics, www.ine.es

  52. 52.

    DÍEZ PICAZO, L.: “En torno al matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo”, (2007) www.indret.com, (last seen: September 2014), pp. 11–12.

  53. 53.

    ROCA TRÍAS held that there would not be a guarantee of institute, and only a subjective right, as the institutional protection is already secured and such interpretation would be confirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU: ROCA TRÍAS, E.: “La familia y sus formas”, Teoría y Derecho. Revista de Pensamiento Jurídico, vol. 2, (2007), p. 58. See also RODRÍGUEZ, Á.: “Treinta y dos”, Diario La Ley n° 6643 (digital edition), (2007).

  54. 54.

    See STC 26/1987, of 27th February 1987, regarding the “autonomy of the universities”. In this judgement, the Court stated that the fundamental right, understood as absolute fundamental right or subjective right, offers more resistance to the legislator, whilst the guarantee of institution is more vulnerable. In the case of marriage it appears to be the opposite, taking into account the second paragraph of Article 32 CE and Article 53.1 CE.

  55. 55.

    STC 53/1985, of 11th April 1985, FJ 4th.

  56. 56.

    See CIDONCHA MARTÍN, A.: “Garantía institucional, dimensión institucional y derecho fundamental: balance jurisprudencial”,(2009), http://espacio.uned.es/fez/eserv.php?pid=bibliuned:TeoriayRealidadConstitucional-2009-23-50050&dsID=PDF, (last seen: September 2014), pp. 149–188.

  57. 57.

    STC 12/1982, of 31st March 1982 dealt with the right to manage and use images and sounds via television, connected to Article 20.1 CE which recognizes “the right to freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions trough words, in writing or by any other means of communication.” The TC mentioned that the notion of “free public opinion” was a guaranteed institution. However, “free public opinion” responds to the characteristics of the objective dimension of the right in the sense that the State must carry out a positive action in order to ensure such free public opinion.

  58. 58.

    STC 9/2007, of 15th January 2007 dealt also with the notion of “free public opinion.” Another example is STC 254/1993, of 20th July 1993, with regards to the use of data processing and the protection of honor and personal and family privacy.

  59. 59.

    In the same way, BAÑO LEÓN pointed out that the notion of subjective right and institutional guarantee intertwine and, both together, become part of the notion of fundamental right, BAÑO LEÓN, J.M.: “La distinción entre derecho fundamental y garantía institucional en la Constitución Española”, Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, vol. 24 (septiembre-diciembre), (1988), pp. 169–170.

  60. 60.

    STC 37/1987, of 26th March 1987, FJ 2nd.

  61. 61.

    See CIDONCHA MARTÍN, A.: “Garantía institucional, dimensión institucional y derecho fundamental: balance jurisprudencial”, op.cit. (last date seen: September 2014), p. 182 and ff.

  62. 62.

    See, for all, STC 203/2000, of 27th July 2000, FJ 4th.

  63. 63.

    ATC 222/1994, of 11th July 1994.

  64. 64.

    RAMOS CHAPARRO, E.: “Objecciones jurídico-civiles a las reformas del matrimonio”, Actualidad Civil, vol. 10, 1 (digital edition), (2005), p. after note 3.

  65. 65.

    See supra note 9.

  66. 66.

    STC 11/1981, of 8th April 1981.

  67. 67.

    STC 32/1981, of 28th July 1981.

  68. 68.

    Id., supra note 66, FJ 8th.

  69. 69.

    STC 37/1987, of 26th March 1987, FJ 2nd.

  70. 70.

    In the same way, VALPUESTA FERNÁNDEZ, R.: “Reflexiones sobre el Derecho de Familia”, Teoría del Derecho. Revista de Pensamiento Jurídico, vol. 2, (2007), p. 76.

  71. 71.

    In a similar way, PRATS ALBENTOSA, L.: “La nueva regulación del derecho matrimonial español: bases y principios” in Morales Moreno and Míquel González (Ed.): Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, n° 10: Derecho, sociedad y familia: cambio y continuidad, Boletín Oficial del Estado y Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, (2006), p. 22.

  72. 72.

    STC 32/1981, of 28th July 1981, FJ 3rd.

  73. 73.

    ASÚA GONZÁLEZ refered to it as the “fight for the name.” Indeed, it was one of the key factors (together with the adoption) at the centre of discussion from those positions opposed to same-sex marriage, see ASÚA GONZÁLEZ, C.I.: “El matrimonio hoy: sus perfiles jurídicos ad intra y ad extra”, op.cit., p. 14.

  74. 74.

    ATC 222/1994, of 11th July 1994.

  75. 75.

    Id. FJ 2nd.

  76. 76.

    The TC referred to the Resolution on equal rights for homosexuals and lesbians in the EC, A3-0028/94.

  77. 77.

    The TC has been reluctant to extend rights with regards to Social Security to cohabitants in previous case law, inter alia, STC 184/1990 and STC 66/1994. The solution given by the TC in ATC 222/1994 seems consistent with these previous judgments which dealt with opposite-sex cohabitation. However, the TC recognized cohabitants for the purposes of subrogation in rental contracts (inter alia, STC 222/1992 and STC 47/1993). This has been criticized as it seems that the TC has a different perspective depending on if the case has a negative impact on the public budget, see PÉREZ VILLALOBOS, M.C.: Las leyes autonómicas reguladoras de las parejas de hecho, Editorial Civitas, Madrid, (2008), p. 145. It is unclear whether the solution would have been the same if the case of ATC 222/1994 dealt with rental contracts instead of a pension from the Social Security system.

  78. 78.

    STC 222/1992, of 12th December 1992.

  79. 79.

    Act 7/2001, of 11th May, protecting de facto unions.

  80. 80.

    Act 135/1999, of 28th August, protecting de facto unions.

  81. 81.

    On de facto unions in Portugal, see DE OLIVEIRA, G. and PEREIRA COELHO, F.: Curso de Direito de Familia, vol. 1, Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, (2008), pp. 52–93, MARTINS, R.: “Same-Sex Partnerships in Portugal. From De Facto to De Jure?”, Utrecht Law Review, vol. 4, 2 (2008); LORENZO VILLAVERDE, J.M.: “Las uniones de hecho (del mismo y de distinto sexo) y su consideración como familia en Portugal: una visión a la luz del art 36 de la Constitución de la República Portuguesa”, Derecho de Familia. Abeledo Perrot, vol. 48, (2011).

  82. 82.

    Act 9/2010, of 31st May, allowing civil marriage between persons of the same sex.

  83. 83.

    RAPOSO named this restriction a “castrated marriage”, see RAPOSO, V.L.: “Crónica de um casamento anunciado (o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo)”, Revista do Ministério Público, vol. Oct-Dec 2009, 120 (2009), pp. 188–189.

  84. 84.

    Constitutional Act 1/2004, of 24th July, sixth constitutional review.

  85. 85.

    I will keep the term Acordão in Portuguese to refer to the judgements of the TCRP. The judgments of the Portuguese Constitutional Court are available at http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/.

  86. 86.

    Acordão 359/2009, of 9th July 2009.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., Fundamento 10.

  88. 88.

    Ibid. The TCRP referred to the opinion of the constitutionalists GOMES CANOTILHO, J.J. and MOREIRA, V.: Constituição da República Portuguesa, anotada: artigos 1° a 107°, vol. 1, Coimbra Editora, Coimbra (2007), p. 568 and MIRANDA, J. and MEDEIROS, R.: Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°, Wolters Kluwer Portugal, Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, (2010), p. 820.

  89. 89.

    Ibid.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., Fundamento 15.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., Fundamentos 11 and 12.

  92. 92.

    See, inter alia, PAMPLONA CÔRTE-REAL, C.: “Da inconstitucionalidade do Código Civil – artigos 1577°, 1628°, alínea e), e disposições conexas – ao vedar o acceso ao instutito do casamento a casais do mesmo sexo” in Pamplona Côrte-Real, Moreira and Duarte D’almeida (Ed.): O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: Três pareceres sobre a inconstitucionalidade dos artigos 1577° e 1628° alínea e) do Código Civil, Edições Almedina SA, Coimbra, (2008); MOREIRA, I.: “Da inconstitucionalidade das normas resultantes da leitura conjugada do artigo 1577° do Código Civil e da alínea e) do artigo 1628° do mesmo Código, nos termos das quais duas pessoas do mesmo sexo não podem contrair casamento e, se o fizerem, é o mesmo tido por inexistente” in ibid. (Ed.),; DUARTE D’ALMEIDA, L.: “Casamento Civil e <sexo diferente>: Sobre a inconstitucionalidade das normas expressas pelos artigos 1577°, e 1628°, alínea e), do Código Civil” in ibid. (Ed.),; MÚRIAS, P.: “Un símbolo como bem juridicamente protegido – parecer”, (2008) http://muriasjuridico.no.sapo.pt/PMuriasParecerCPMS.pdf, (last date seen: November 2013).

  93. 93.

    See, inter alia, BARROSO, I.M.: “Casamento civil entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: um <<direito fundamental>> á medida da lei ordinária?”, Lex Familiae – Revista Portuguesa de Direito da Familia, vol. 7, 13 (2010), pp. 57–82, DE OLIVEIRA, G. and PEREIRA COELHO, F.: Curso de Direito de Familia, vol. 1, op.cit. p. 203 and ff; SANTOS, D.: Mudam-se os tempos, mudam-se os casamentos? O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo e o Direito português, Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, (2009), pp. 342 and ff, specially. However, DE OLIVEIRA, in DE OLIVEIRA, G.: “Portugal! Um país de contrastes” in Costa (Ed.): Metamorfosi del matrimonio e altre forme di convivenza affetiva, Libreria Bonomo Editrice, Bologna, (2007), p. 181, stated that there is no obstacle for opening marriage to same-sex couples.

  94. 94.

    See RAPOSO, V.L.: “Crónica de um casamento anunciado (o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo)”, op.cit. p. 179 and ff. This author rejected that the CRP established a prohibition on same-sex marriages. She mentioned that it could eventually be possible to name it differently (that is, creating a registration scheme for same-sex partnerships, see p. 179), but she was of the opinion that, taking into account a dynamic interpretation of the CRP, if not now, same-sex marriage could become constitutionally obliged in the future (p. 182) and supported same-sex marriage versus registered partnership (pp. 186 and ff.). See also GOMES CANOTILHO, J.J. and MOREIRA, V.: Constituição da República Portuguesa, anotada: artigos 1° a 107°, vol. 1, op.cit. pp. 567–568, MIRANDA, J. and MEDEIROS, R.: Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°, op.cit., pp. 811 and 819–821.

  95. 95.

    GOMES CANOTILHO, J.J. and MOREIRA, V.: Constituição da República Portuguesa, anotada: artigos 1° a 107°, vol. 1, op.cit., pp. 567–568, MIRANDA, J. and MEDEIROS, R.: Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°, op.cit., p. 811 and 819.

  96. 96.

    See GOMES CANOTILHO, J.J. and MOREIRA, V.: Constituição da República Portuguesa, anotada: artigos 1° a 107°, vol. 1, op.cit., p. 561; MIRANDA, J. and MEDEIROS, R.: Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°, op.cit., p. 819; DE OLIVEIRA, G. and PEREIRA COELHO, F.: Curso de Direito de Familia, vol. 1, op.cit., pp. 112–114 In a different way, MURIAS considered the theory of the guarantee of institute (or institution) groundless, see MÚRIAS, P.: “Un símbolo como bem juridicamente protegido – parecer”, op.cit. (last date seen: November 2013), p. 16 and ff.

  97. 97.

    Inter alia, BARROSO, I.M.: “Casamento civil entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: um <<direito fundamental>> á medida da lei ordinária?”, op.cit. p. 65; SANTOS, D.: Mudam-se os tempos, mudam-se os casamentos? O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo e o Direito português, op.cit., pp. 303–306 and 342 and ff; MACHADO, J.E.M.: “A (in)definição do casamento no Estado constitucional: Fundamentos meta-constitucionais e deliberação democrática” in De Oliveira, Machado and Martins (Ed.): Família, consciência, secularismo e religião, Wolters Kluwer Portugal, Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, (2010), p. 65.

  98. 98.

    See GOMES CANOTILHO, J.J. and MOREIRA, V.: Constituição da República Portuguesa, anotada: artigos 1° a 107°, vol. 1, op.cit., pp. 567–568; MIRANDA, J. and MEDEIROS, R.: Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°, op.cit., pp. 819–821; PAMPLONA CÔRTE-REAL, C.: Da inconstitucionalidade do Código Civil – artigos 1577°, 1628°, alínea e), e disposições conexas – ao vedar o acceso ao instutito do casamento a casais do mesmo sexo, op.cit. pp. 21–22; RAPOSO, V.L.: “Crónica de um casamento anunciado (o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo)”, op.cit., pp. 182–183.

  99. 99.

    The possibility or convenience of a dynamic interpretation, in order to give the legislator the option (or in order to impose the obligation) of opening up marriage to same-sex couples, has been present in the debate among the legal scholarship, inter alia: MIRANDA, J. and MEDEIROS, R.: Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°, op.cit., p. 815; DE OLIVEIRA, G.: Portugal! Um país de contrastes, op.cit. p. 181; PAMPLONA CÔRTE-REAL, C.: Da inconstitucionalidade do Código Civil – artigos 1577°, 1628°, alínea e), e disposições conexas – ao vedar o acceso ao instutito do casamento a casais do mesmo sexo, op.cit. p. 24; MOREIRA, I.: “Da inconstitucionalidade das normas resultantes da leitura conjugada do artigo 1577° do Código Civil e da alínea e) do artigo 1628° do mesmo Código, nos termos das quais duas pessoas do mesmo sexo não podem contrair casamento e, se o fizerem, é o mesmo tido por inexistente” in ibid. (Ed.), p. 37; RAPOSO, V.L.: “Crónica de um casamento anunciado (o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo)”, op.cit., p. 181. On the other hand, BARROSO denied a dynamic interpretation not only with regards to the CRP but also with regards to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which could eventually be used to interpret article 36 CRP, taking into account article 16.2 CRP, see BARROSO, I.M.: “Casamento civil entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: um <<direito fundamental>> á medida da lei ordinária?”, op.cit., p. 63.

  100. 100.

    PAMPLONA CÔRTE-REAL, C.: Da inconstitucionalidade do Código Civil – artigos 1577°, 1628°, alínea e), e disposições conexas – ao vedar o acceso ao instutito do casamento a casais do mesmo sexo, op.cit. p. 23; MOREIRA, I.: “Da inconstitucionalidade das normas resultantes da leitura conjugada do artigo 1577° do Código Civil e da alínea e) do artigo 1628° do mesmo Código, nos termos das quais duas pessoas do mesmo sexo não podem contrair casamento e, se o fizerem, é o mesmo tido por inexistente” in ibid. (Ed.), p. 35. However, BARROSO used the argument of the normative hierarchy in a different way: he pointed out that opening up marriage to same-sex couples in the CCRP and then interpreting Article 36 CRP in the light of such amendment would be an inversion of the normative hierarchy, see BARROSO, I.M.: “Casamento civil entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: um <<direito fundamental>> á medida da lei ordinária?”, op.cit., p. 68 and 80.

  101. 101.

    DE OLIVEIRA, G.: Portugal! Um país de contrastes, op.cit., p. 181; GOMES CANOTILHO, J.J. and MOREIRA, V.: Constituição da República Portuguesa, anotada: artigos 1° a 107°, vol. 1, op.cit. p. 567; MIRANDA, J. and MEDEIROS, R.: Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°, op.cit. p. 809; RAPOSO, V.L.: “Crónica de um casamento anunciado (o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo)”, op.cit. p. 176; MOREIRA, I.: Da inconstitucionalidade das normas resultantes da leitura conjugada do artigo 1577° do Código Civil e da alínea e) do artigo 1628° do mesmo Código, nos termos das quais duas pessoas do mesmo sexo não podem contrair casamento e, se o fizerem, é o mesmo tido por inexistente, op.cit. pp. 50–52; DUARTE D’ALMEIDA, L.: “Casamento Civil e <sexo diferente>: Sobre a inconstitucionalidade das normas expressas pelos artigos 1577°, e 1628°, alínea e), do Código Civil” in ibid. (Ed.), pp. 68–69.

  102. 102.

    However, DUARTE SANTOS, denying the constitutionality of same-sex marriages, considers that, even though procreation is not necessarily essential, marriage is “potentially procreative”, see SANTOS, D.: Mudam-se os tempos, mudam-se os casamentos? O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo e o Direito português, op.cit., p. 327 and ff.

  103. 103.

    MACHADO, J.E.M.: A (in)definição do casamento no Estado constitucional: Fundamentos meta-constitucionais e deliberação democrática, op.cit., p. 9 and ff.

  104. 104.

    MÚRIAS, P.: “Un símbolo como bem juridicamente protegido – parecer”, op.cit. (last date seen: September 2014), p. 28; DUARTE D’ALMEIDA, L.: Casamento Civil e <sexo diferente>: Sobre a inconstitucionalidade das normas expressas pelos artigos 1577°, e 1628°, alínea e), do Código Civil, op.cit. p. 59. However, DUARTE SANTOS, even admitting the power of such symbolism, gave more weight to the idea of marriage as potentially procreative, see SANTOS, D.: Mudam-se os tempos, mudam-se os casamentos? O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo e o Direito português, op.cit. p. 326 and 328 and ff.

  105. 105.

    For a summary of the political debate and initiatives in Portugal, see SANTOS, D.: Mudam-se os tempos, mudam-se os casamentos? O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo e o Direito português, op.cit., p. 72 and ff.

  106. 106.

    Acordão 121/2010, of 8th April.

  107. 107.

    Ibid., Fundamento 18.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., Fundamento 19.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., Fundamento 20.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., Fundamento 22.

  111. 111.

    Ibid.

  112. 112.

    Unfortunately, 7 years is within the average time the TC takes to deliver a decision, http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2012/04/01/actualidad/1333311471_924226.html (last accessed: September 2014).

  113. 113.

    In favor: magistrates Pascual Sala Sánchez (President), Pablo Pérez Tremps, Adela Asúa Batarrita, Luis Ignacio Ortega Alvarez, Francisco Pérez de los Cobos Orihuel, Encarnación Roca Trías and Fernando Valdés Dal-Ré; dissenting votes: magistrates Ramón Rodríguez Arribas, Andrés Ollero Tassara and Juan José González Rivas; concurrent vote: magistrate Manuel Aragón Reyes. Magistrate Francisco José Hernando Santiago was challenged because he participated in the preparation of the report issued by the CGPJ and did not take part in this decision. There is a publicly known distinction between so-called “progressive” and “conservative” magistrates, depending on whether their appointment was suggested by the conservative PP or the centre-left PSOE. The three dissenting votes correspond to magistrates known as “conservative”. The magistrate Francisco José Hernando Santiago, who did not participate, is also known as “conservative”. Such unofficial distinction between the members of the TC highlights the significance of political influence in the Court.

  114. 114.

    STC 198/2012, FJ 3rd. See supra note 17.

  115. 115.

    Ibid.

  116. 116.

    Ibid. FJ 5th. See supra Sect. 2.4 “Same-Sex Couples and Marriage According to the Constitutional Court prior to STC 198/2012”.

  117. 117.

    See, inter alia, STC 222/1992 of 11th December 1992, FJ 4th and 5th; STC 116/1999, of 17th June 1999, FJ 13th; STC 19/2012 of 15th February 2012, FJ 5th.

  118. 118.

    See, inter alia, Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, 24th June 2010.

  119. 119.

    STC 198/2012, FJ 7th. See supra Sect. 2.3 “The Constitutional Court and the Development of the Concepts of Constitutional Guarantee and Subjective Right”.

  120. 120.

    Ibid., FJ 8th.

  121. 121.

    Ibid., FJ 9th.

  122. 122.

    Ibid.

  123. 123.

    Ibid.

  124. 124.

    See Sect. 2.3, “The Constitutional Court and the Development of the Concepts of Guarantee and Subjective Right”.

  125. 125.

    Following the definition of guarantee of institution given in STC 32/1981, of 28th July, FJ 3rd. See supra Sect. 2.3, “The Constitutional Court and the Development of the Concepts of Guarantee and Subjective Right”.

  126. 126.

    STC 198/2012, FJ 9th.

  127. 127.

    See supra Sect. 2.3, “The Constitutional Court and the Development of the Concepts of Guarantee and Subjective Right”.

  128. 128.

    STC 198/2012, FJ 10th.

  129. 129.

    Ibid.

  130. 130.

    See supra Sect. 2.4. “Same-Sex Couples and Marriage According to the Constitutional Court prior to STC 198/2012”.

  131. 131.

    STC 198/2012, FJ 10th.

  132. 132.

    Ibid.

  133. 133.

    STC 198/2012, concurrent vote Magistrate Manuel Aragón Reyes, FJ 1st.

  134. 134.

    Ibid. FJ 2nd.

  135. 135.

    Although Aragón Reyes rejected the dynamic interpretation of the guarantee, he considered the essential content of the guarantee as “historically changeable” and, hence, a certain idea of evolution to keep the image of the guarantee of institution recognizable for the social conscience is present. STC 198/2012, concurrent vote of Magistrate Aragón Reyes, FJ 2nd.

  136. 136.

    Magistrates Ollero Tassara mentioned that marriage is an “anthropological” reality. STC 198/2012, dissenting vote of Magistrate Ollero Tassara, FJ 5th.

  137. 137.

    Magistrates González Rivas and Ollero Tassara referred to this point. González Rivas pointed out that the broad margin left by international courts meant that the Court was not obliged to introduce same-sex marriage and, in connection with the wording of the Constitution, same-sex marriage was excluded. STC 198/2012, dissenting vote of Magistrate González Rivas, FJ 3rd. Ollero Tassara stressed that Constitutional case law cannot be dependent on “foreign decisions.” STC 198/2012, dissenting vote of Magistrate Ollero Tassara, FJ 6th.

  138. 138.

    Rodríguez Arribas talked about marriage as a “sexual union which natural purpose is the perpetuation of human species.” STC 198/2012, dissenting vote of Magistrate Rodríguez Arribas, FJ 1st. Ollero Tassara embraced the idea of a “social function” of marriage which, although he did not explicitly mention it, seems to refer to procreation as well. STC 198/2012, dissenting vote of Magistrate Ollero Tassara, FJ 2nd and 3rd. Similarly, González Rivas, without expressly mentioning procreation, referred to the “essential purpose” of marriage. STC 198/2012, dissenting vote of Magistrate González Rivas, FJ 4th. “after” well.”

  139. 139.

    Ollero Tassara pointed out that the TC should be prevented from becoming a “third chamber” (together with the Congress and the Senate). STC 198/2012, dissenting vote of Magistrate Ollero Tassara, FJ 1st.

  140. 140.

    See supra Sect. 2.3. “The Constitutional Court and the Development of the Concepts of Constitutional Guarantee and Subjective Right”.

  141. 141.

    See supra note 138.

  142. 142.

    See supra Sect. 2.2. “Challenges to the Constitutionality of Act 13/2005: Article 32 CE and heterosexuality as a defining element in marriage”.

  143. 143.

    This approach has as a consequence a coincidence between the concept of marriage in the CE and in the CC. Supporters of this coincidence of concepts have been, inter alia, CAÑAMARES ARRIBAS, S.: El matrimonio homosexual en derecho español y comparado, Iustel, Madrid, (2007), p. 132 and MARTÍNEZ DE AGUIRRE ALDAZ, C. and DE PABLO CONTRERAS, P.: Constitución, derecho al matrimonio y uniones entre personas del mismo sexo, Rialp, Madrid, (2007), pp. 76–80. This is also the position of the CGPJ in its Report of 26th January 2005, pp. 42–43.

  144. 144.

    STC 198/2012, FJ 8th.

  145. 145.

    See supra Sect. 2.3. “The Constitutional Court and the Development of the Concepts of Constitutional Guarantee and Subjective Right”.

  146. 146.

    As defined in STC 32/1981. See supra Sect. 2.3. “The Constitutional Court and the Development of the Concepts of Constitutional Guarantee and Subjective Right”.

  147. 147.

    STC 198/2012, dissenting votes of: Magistrate Rodríguez Arribas, FJ 2 nd ; Magistrate Ollero Tassara, FJ 5 th ; Magistrate González Rivas, FJ 6 th.

  148. 148.

    STC 198/2012, FJ 11 th.

  149. 149.

    Among the legal scholars supporting same-sex marriage as constitutionally possible prior to Act 13/2005. See DE AMUNÁTEGUI RODRÍGUEZ, C.: “Argumentos a favor de la posible constitucionalidad del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo”, Revista General de Legislación y Jurisprudencia, 3 (2005), p. 32 and GAVIDIA SÁNCHEZ, J.V.: “Uniones homosexuales y concepto constitucional de matrimonio”, Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, vol. 61, (2001), p. 50. For an opposite opinion, MARTÍNEZ DE AGUIRRE ALDAZ, C. and DE PABLO CONTRERAS, P.: Constitución, derecho al matrimonio y uniones entre personas del mismo sexo, op.cit., pp. 76–80.

  150. 150.

    In this sense, the TCRP in Acordão 359/2009, p. 10. See also MIRANDA, J. and MEDEIROS, R.: Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°, op.cit., p. 819 and GOMES CANOTILHO, J.J. and MOREIRA, V.: Constituição da República Portuguesa, anotada: artigos 1° a 107°, vol. 1, op.cit., p. 568. In a similar way, the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Swedish Constitution (the other constitution of a European country which expressly mentions it) was not conclusive of an obligation of opening marriage to same-sex couples (I wish to thank CAROLINE SÖRGJERD for enlightening me in the Swedish case).

  151. 151.

    See BARROSO, I.M.: “Casamento civil entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: um <<direito fundamental>> á medida da lei ordinária?”, op.cit., pp. 61–62. He also denied a dynamic interpretation of Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  152. 152.

    MIRANDA, J. and MEDEIROS, R.: Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°, op.cit., pp. 824–825.

  153. 153.

    Acordão 121/2010. Fundamentação 18.

  154. 154.

    PRATS ALBENTOSA, L.: La nueva regulación del derecho matrimonial español: bases y principios, op.cit., p. 19. It is relevant, because of the time and the context in which those comments were made, the opinion of PERE RALUY, judge in charge of the Civil Registry of Barcelona in 1977, just 2 years after the death of General Franco, with the Francoist Civil Code still in force. In an interview, PERE RALUY pointed out that the Civil Code in force did not expressly prevent same-sex couples from marrying as the gender diversity was not expressly demanded anywhere in the Code. Interview with PERE RALUY in DOMINGO LORÉN, V.: Los homosexuales frente a la ley. Los juristas opinan, Plaza y Janés S.A., Barcelona, (1977), pp. 138–144.

  155. 155.

    Arrêt n° 159/2004, of 20th October 2004.

  156. 156.

    In this sense, referring to the Portuguese case, RAPOSO, V.L.: “Crónica de um casamento anunciado (o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo)”, op.cit., p. 182.

Bibliography

  1. Alonso García, E. 1984. La interpretación de la Constitución. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asúa González, C.I. 2007. El matrimonio hoy: sus perfiles jurídicos ad intra y ad extra. Teoría y Derecho. Revista de Pensamiento Jurídico 2: 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Balaguer Callejón, M.L. 1997. Interpretación de la Constitución y ordenamiento jurídico. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ballester Cardell, M. 2007. El Consejo General del Poder Judicial: su función constitcional y legal. Madrid: Consejo General del Poder Judicial.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baño León, J.M. 1988. La distinción entre derecho fundamental y garantía institucional en la Constitución Española. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 24 (septiembre-diciembre), pp. 155–179.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barroso, I.M. 2010. Casamento civil entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: um direito fundamental á medida da lei ordinária? Lex Familiae – Revista Portuguesa de Direito da Familia 7(13), pp. 57–82.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cañamares Arribas, S. 2007. El matrimonio homosexual en derecho español y comparado. Madrid: Iustel.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cidoncha Martín, A. 2009. Garantía institucional, dimensión institucional y derecho fundamental: Balance jurisprudencial, pp. 149–188. http://e-spacio.uned.es/fez/eserv.php?pid=bibliuned:TeoriayRealidadConstitucional-2009-23-50050&dsID=PDF. Last date seen November 2013.

  9. De Amunátegui Rodríguez, C. 2005. Argumentos a favor de la posible constitucionalidad del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. Revista General de Legislación y Jurisprudencia 3: 351–368.

    Google Scholar 

  10. De Oliveira, G. 2007. Portugal! Um país de contrastes. In Metamorfosi del matrimonio e altre forme di convivenza affetiva, ed. Costa. Bologna: Libreria Bonomo Editrice.

    Google Scholar 

  11. De Oliveira, G., and F. Pereira Coelho. 2008. Curso de Direito de Familia, vol. 1. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  12. De Pablo Contreras, P. 2008. La Constitución y la Ley 13/2005, de 1 de julio, de reforma del Código Civil en materia de derecho a contraer matrimonio. In Novedades legislativas en materia matrimonial, ed. C. Martínez De Aguirre Aldaz. Madrid: Consejo General del Poder Judicial.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Díez Picazo, L. 2007. En torno al matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. www.indret.com. Last date seen November 2013.

  14. Domingo Lorén, V. 1977. Los homosexuales frente a la ley. Los juristas opinan. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Duarte D’almeida, L. 2008. Casamento Civil e <sexo diferente>: Sobre a inconstitucionalidade das normas expressas pelos artigos 1577°, e 1628°, alínea e), do Código Civil. In O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: Três pareceres sobre a inconstitucionalidade dos artigos 1577° e 1628° alínea e) do Código Civil, ed. C. Pamplona Côrte-Real, I. Moreira, and L. Duarte D’almeida. Coimbra: Edições Almedina SA.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fernández Segado, F. 1992. El Sistema Constitucional Español. Madrid: Dykinson.

    Google Scholar 

  17. García Rubio, M.P. 2009. Viejos y nuevos apuntes sobre la constitucionalidad del matrimonio homosexual. In Estudios de Derecho de Familia y Sucesiones (dimensiones interna e internacional), ed. Álvarez González. Santiago de Compostela: Fundación Asesores Locales.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gavidia Sánchez, J.V. 2007. La libertad de elegir como cónyuge a otra persona del mismo sexo y de optar entre el matrimonio y una unión libre (análisis crítico de la constitucionalidad del matrimonio homosexual y del llamado divorcio express). In La reforma del matrimonio (Leyes 13 y 15/2005), ed. J.V. Gavidia Sánchez. Madrid: Marcial Pons.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gavidia Sánchez, J.V. 2001. Uniones homosexuales y concepto constitucional de matrimonio. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 61: 11–58.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gomes Canotilho, J.J., and V. Moreira. 2007. Constituição da República Portuguesa, anotada: artigos 1° a 107°, vol. 1. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  21. López Aguilar, J.F. 2005. Los criterios constitucionales y políticos inspiradores de la reforma del Derecho Civil en materia matrimonial. Actualidad Jurídica Aranzadi núm. 655 (digital edition).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lorenzo Villaverde, J.M. 2011. Las uniones de hecho (del mismo y de distinto sexo) y su consideración como familia en Portugal: una visión a la luz del art 36 de la Constitución de la República Portuguesa. Derecho de Familia. Abeledo Perrot 48: 199–211.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Machado, J.E.M. 2010. A (in)definição do casamento no Estado constitucional: Fundamentos meta-constitucionais e deliberação democrática. In Família, consciência, secularismo e religião, ed. G. De Oliveira, J. Machado, and R. Martins. Coimbra: Wolters Kluwer Portugal, Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Martín Sánchez, M. 2008. Matrimonio homosexual y constitución. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanc.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Martínez De Aguirre Aldaz, C., and P. De Pablo Contreras. 2011. National report: Spain. Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law 9-1: 289–307.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Martínez De Aguirre Aldaz, C., and P. De Pablo Contreras. 2007. Constitución, derecho al matrimonio y uniones entre personas del mismo sexo. Madrid: Rialp.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Martins, R. 2008. Same-sex partnerships in Portugal: from De Facto to De Jure? Utrecht Law Review 4-1: 194–211.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Miranda, J., and R. Medeiros. 2010. Constituição Portuguesa Anotada, Tomo I: Introdução Geral, Preâmbulo, artigos 1° a 79°. Coimbra: Wolters Kluwer Portugal, Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Moreira, I. 2008. Da inconstitucionalidade das normas resultantes da leitura conjugada do artigo 1577° do Código Civil e da alínea e) do artigo 1628° do mesmo Código, nos termos das quais duas pessoas do mesmo sexo não podem contrair casamento e, se o fizerem, é o mesmo tido por inexistente. In O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: Três pareceres sobre a inconstitucionalidade dos artigos 1577° e 1628° alínea e) do Código Civil, ed. C. Pamplona Côrte-Real, I. Moreira, and L. Duarte D’almeida. Coimbra: Edições Almedina SA.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Múrias, P. 2008. Un símbolo como bem juridicamente protegido – parecer. http://muriasjuridico.no.sapo.pt/PMuriasParecerCPMS.pdf. Last date seen November 2013.

  31. Pamplona Côrte-Real, C. 2008. Da inconstitucionalidade do Código Civil – artigos 1577° 1628° alínea e), e disposições conexas – ao vedar o acceso ao instutito do casamento a casais do mesmo sexo. In O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo: Três pareceres sobre a inconstitucionalidade dos artigos 1577° e 1628° alínea e) do Código Civil, ed. C. Pamplona Côrte-Real, I. Moreira, and L. Duarte D’almeida. Coimbra: Edições Almedina SA.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pérez Royo, J. 1998. Curso de Derecho Constitucional. Madrid: Marcial Pons.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pérez Villalobos, M.C. 2008. Las leyes autonómicas reguladoras de las parejas de hecho. Madrid: Editorial Civitas.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Prats Albentosa, L. 2006. La nueva regulación del derecho matrimonial español: bases y principios. In Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, no 10: Derecho, sociedad y familia: cambio y continuidad, ed. Morales Moreno and Míquel González. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado y Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ramos Chaparro, E. 2005. Objecciones jurídico-civiles a las reformas del matrimonio. Actualidad Civil 10: 1 (digital edition).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Raposo, V.L. 2009. Crónica de um casamento anunciado (o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo). Revista do Ministério Público Oct–Dec 2009, 120: 157–190.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Roca Trías, E. 2007. La familia y sus formas. Teoría y Derecho. Revista de Pensamiento Jurídico 2: 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rodríguez, Á. 2007. Treinta y dos. Diario La Ley n° 6643 (digital edition).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sánchez Navarro, Á.J. 2007. Consejo de Estado, función consultiva y reforma constitucional. Madrid: Reus.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Santos, D. 2009. Mudam-se os tempos, mudam-se os casamentos? O casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo e o Direito português. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schuster, A. 2011. Gender and beyond: disaggregating legal categories. In Equality and justice: sexual orientation and gender identity in the XXI century, ed. A. Schuster. Udine: Editrice Universitaria Udinese srl.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Valpuesta Fernández, R. 2007. Reflexiones sobre el Derecho de Familia. Teoría del Derecho. Revista de Pensamiento Jurídico 2: 75–79.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Studiestræde 6, 1455, Copenhagen, Denmark

    José María Lorenzo Villaverde

Authors
  1. José María Lorenzo Villaverde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José María Lorenzo Villaverde .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Macarena Sáez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lorenzo Villaverde, J.M. (2015). And the Story Comes to an End: The Constitutionality of Same-Sex Marriages in Spain. In: Sáez, M. (eds) Same Sex Couples - Comparative Insights on Marriage and Cohabitation. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 42. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9774-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation