Same Sex Marriage: The Inappropriate Way in the Search for Equal Equality

  • Rodrigo Durango Cordero
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31207/ih.v9i1.213
Keywords: Mixed marriage, Constitution, Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Sex orientation discrimination

Abstract

In 2019, the Constitutional Court issued two sentences that, in a nutshell, legally make equal marriage in Ecuador or of same-sex persons legally viable. These sentences were sent to the Court through the procedure of consultation of norm, in accordance with article 428 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador in order that the maximum constitutional justice court of the country exercise the concrete control of constitutionality, with regarding legal provisions that concern civil marriage and Advisory Opinion 24 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2017, requested by the Republic of Costa Rica regarding gender identity, and equality and non-discrimination Same-sex couples. The objective of this paper is to criticize the argumentative construction of the Court in these opinions, by demonstrating that said body arrived at inconsistent conclusions based on incorrect premises. For this purpose, the methodology used is hypothetical-deductive, in the light of the argumentative criticism that has been mentioned. The work is composed of the following lines of analysis: First, the denaturation of the concrete control of constitutionality. Second, the interpretation made to the applicable normative statements. Third, about the legal value of the advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court. Finally, some conclusions that will pay for the academic debate.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alexy, R. (2004). El concepto y la validez del derecho. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Alexy, R. (2012). Teoría de la argumentación jurídica (Trad. M. Atienza e I. Espejo). Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.
Ávila, R. (2012). Los derechos y sus garantías. Quito: Corte Constitucional para el Período de Transición.
Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, sentencia 001-13-SCN-CC, caso 0535-12-CN (Jueces del Tribunal Distrital de lo Contencioso Administrativo 3 con sede en Cuenca), de 13-II-2013.
Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, sentencia 003-14-SN-CC, de 17-IX-2014.
Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, sentencia 014-13-SCN-CC, de 12-IV-2013.
Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, sentencia 030-13-SCN-CC, caso 0697-12-CN, petición de consulta de norma efectuada por la Corte Nacional de Justicia, de 14-V-2013.
Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, sentencia 036-13-SCN-CC, caso 0047-11-CN, petición de consulta de norma efectuada por el Juez de lo Civil de Pastaza, de 14-V-2013.
Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, sentencia 10-18-CN/19 de 12-VI-2019.
Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, sentencia 11-18-CN/19, de 12-VI-2019.
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, opinión consultiva OC-1/82, “Otros tratados”, objeto de la función consultiva de la Corte (art. 64 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos), solicitada por el Estado de Perú, de 24-IX-1982.
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, opinión consultiva OC-15/97, “Informes de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos” (art. 51 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos), solicitada por el Estado de Chile, de 14-XI-1997.
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, opinión consultiva OC-24/17, relativa a la identidad de género, e igualdad y no discriminación a parejas del mismo sexo, solicitada por la República de Costa Rica, de 24-XI-2017.
Corte Internacional de Justicia. (30-III-1950). Opinión consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia sobre interpretación de los tratados de paz. ICJ Reports.
Gross, L. (1967). The International Court of Justice and the United Nations. Recueil des cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye, 120(1), 313-440.
Guastini, R. (2008). Teoría e ideología de la interpretación constitucional. Madrid: IIJ/UNAM.
Rodotà, S. (2019). El derecho de amor. Madrid: Trotta.
Vigo, R. (2017). La interpretación (argumentación) en el Estado Constitucional. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
Zagrebelsky, G. (2009). El derecho dúctil. Madrid: Trotta.
Published
2020-02-24
How to Cite
Durango Cordero, R. (2020). Same Sex Marriage: The Inappropriate Way in the Search for Equal Equality. Ius Humani. Law Journal, 9(1), 139-157. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31207/ih.v9i1.213
Issue
Vol 9 No 1 (2020): Ius Humani. Law Journal
Section
Papers
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors publishing in our Journal comply to the following terms:
1. Authors keep their work’s copyrights, but they guarantee Ius Humani Law Journal to be the first publisher of their papers. They grant the Journal will a Creative Commons Attribution License, under which their work can be shared with the condition that it is appropriately cited.
2. Authors are aware and accept that the Ius Humani Team will try to give the greatest diffusion to the Journal, which means, among other things, that its printed and electronic editions will be distributed among different databases and scientific indexes.
3. Authors can establish further clauses for non exclusive distribution, such as publication on a separate book or placing in an institutional data-base. Nevertheless, a note should be always added to explain that the paper was originally published in Ius Humani Law Journal.
4. We permit and encourage authors to share their work through Internet before and during the editorial process to receive further recommendations and wider references (we recommend you read the article The Effect of Open Access).