Análise da constitucionalidade da recusa à celebração de casamento religioso entre pessoas do mesmo sexo [Digital]
Dissertação
Português
342.7
Fortaleza, 2023.
157f.
Direitos humanos protegem a dignidade humana em sua pretensão universal de reconhecimento e independem de governos estatais ou culturas, sendo válidos universalmente, em decorrência unicamente da condição humana. Por sua vez, direitos fundamentais exigem o reconhecimento normativo no plano interno...
Ver mais
Direitos humanos protegem a dignidade humana em sua pretensão universal de reconhecimento e independem de governos estatais ou culturas, sendo válidos universalmente, em decorrência unicamente da condição humana. Por sua vez, direitos fundamentais exigem o reconhecimento normativo no plano interno de cada Estado e trazem ao nível local a pretensão universal de reconhecimento da dignidade humana, conferindo-lhe maior força coercitiva. O reconhecimento normativo no plano interno possibilita haver a colisão entre direitos fundamentais, cabendo a cada Estado definir os limites de exercício legítimo dos respectivos direitos. Uma dessas colisões ocorre com a recusa de celebração de casamento entre pessoas de mesmo sexo, por religiões que consideram o casamento um instituto exclusivo entre homem e mulher. A presente dissertação pretende identificar se é constitucional a recusa da celebração do casamento religioso entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, face à colisão entre os direitos fundamentais de liberdade religiosa e de não discriminação das pessoas lésbicas, gays, bissexuais, travestis, transexuais e transgêneros, queer, intersexuais, assexuais e outras identidades (LGBTQIA+). Para tanto, buscou-se conhecer melhor os dois direitos fundamentais em conflito, através de pesquisa bibliográfica e documental, com análise da doutrina e documentos como as constituições brasileiras, atas de assembleias nacionais constituintes, documentos internacionais e jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da América e do Tribunal Constitucional Federal da Alemanha. Desse modo, inicialmente, verificou-se que o Brasil adota o modelo de laicidade neutral, no qual o Estado não possui religião oficial, mas garante o livre exercício da liberdade de crença e de culto, na esfera pública e privada, qualquer que seja a religião escolhida pelo indivíduo. Constatouse, ainda, que o princípio da proporcionalidade constitui um importante mecanismo para identificar se o tratamento diferenciado entre indivíduos é ou não discriminatório, na medida em que permite avaliar se esse tratamento foi adequado e necessário para solucionar uma determinada situação, bem como se os benefícios decorrentes foram superiores aos malefícios provocados. Observou-se, também, que na Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade por Omissão nº 26 (ADO), julgada em 2019, o STF considerou que os discursos religiosos não devem ser considerados homotransfóbicos, exceto quando incitem a discriminação, hostilidade ou violência contra as pessoas. Contudo, a decisão do STF não especificou os parâmetros para identificar o que seja um discurso discriminatório, de modo a distinguir com segurança os limites entre discursos discriminatórios e aqueles protegidos pela liberdade religiosa. Ao final da presente dissertação, foram propostos parâmetros para solução do conflito entre a liberdade religiosa e a negativa da celebração de casamento de pessoas do mesmo sexo, de modo a identificar quando essa recusa se encontra constitucionalmente amparada. O primeiro parâmetro proposto foi a compreensão doutrinária da religião sobre o casamento ser ou não um instituto exclusivo entre homem e mulher. O segundo foi a compreensão doutrinária da organização religiosa individualmente considerada, que pode ser diferente ou complementar ao entendimento geral da respectiva religião, a partir da liberdade de associação em matéria religiosa e da autointerpretação dos próprios dogmas. O terceiro foi a compreensão pessoal do ministro de confissão religiosa, quando a religião ou a organização religiosa não tiverem posição doutrinária consolidada sobre o assunto. Por fim, foram apresentadas considerações sobre o direito ao dissenso respeitoso que indivíduos e organizações religiosas têm em relação ao casamento religioso entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, cabendo ao Estado agir com neutralidade, abstendo-se de utilizar a força estatal para perseguir ou favorecer uma das concepções sobre matéria tão sensível e íntima ao ser humano. Buscou-se, assim, contribuir para a formulação de uma proposta de solução equilibrada do conflito, que confira máxima eficácia aos direitos de liberdade religiosa e de não discriminação e, com isso, resguardar o adequado respeito aos direitos humanos pela ordem jurídica brasileira.
Palavras-chave: liberdade religiosa; não discriminação; LGBTQIA+; direitos fundamentais; casamento religioso. Ver menos
Palavras-chave: liberdade religiosa; não discriminação; LGBTQIA+; direitos fundamentais; casamento religioso. Ver menos
Human rights protect human dignity in its universal claim to recognition and are independent of state governments or cultures, being valid universally, due solely to the human condition. In turn, fundamental rights require normative recognition at the domestic level of each State and bring the...
Ver mais
Human rights protect human dignity in its universal claim to recognition and are independent of state governments or cultures, being valid universally, due solely to the human condition. In turn, fundamental rights require normative recognition at the domestic level of each State and bring the universal claim of recognition of human dignity to the local level, giving it greater coercive force. Normative recognition at the domestic level makes it possible for there to be a collision between fundamental rights, and it is up to each State to define the limits of the legitimate exercise of the respective rights. One of these collisions occurs with the refusal to celebrate marriage between people of the same sex, by religions that consider marriage an exclusive institute
between man and woman. This dissertation aims to identify whether the refusal to celebrate religious marriage between people of the same sex is constitutional, given the collision between the fundamental rights of religious freedom and non-discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite, transsexual and transgender people, queer, intersex, asexual and other identities (LGBTQIA+). To this end, we sought to better understand the two fundamental rights in conflict, through bibliographical and documentary research, with analysis of doctrine and documents such as Brazilian constitutions, minutes of constituent national assemblies, international documents and jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of the United States of America and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Thus, initially, it was verified that Brazil adopts the model of neutral secularism, in which the State has no official religion, but guarantees the free exercise of freedom of belief and worship, in the public and private sphere, whatever the religion chosen by the individual. It was also found that the principle of proportionality is an important mechanism to identify whether or not the differentiated treatment between individuals is discriminatory, insofar as it allows the assessment of whether this treatment was appropriate and necessary to solve a given situation, as well as whether the resulting benefits outweighed the harm caused. It was also observed that in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission No. 26 (ADO), judged in 2019, the STF considered that religious speeches should not be considered homotransphobic, except when they incite discrimination, hostility or violence against people. However, the STF's decision did not specify the parameters for identifying what is discriminatory speech, in order to distinguish with certainty the boundaries between discriminatory speeches and those protected by religious freedom. At the end of this dissertation, parameters were proposed for resolving the conflict between religious freedom and the refusal to celebrate same-sex marriages, in order to identify when this refusal is constitutionally supported. The first parameter proposed was the doctrinal understanding of religion on whether or not marriage is an exclusive institute between man and woman. The second was the doctrinal understanding of the individual religious organization, which may be different or complementary to the general understanding of the respective religion, based on the freedom of association in religious matters and the selfinterpretation of their own dogmas. The third was the personal understanding of the minister of religious confession, when the religion or religious organization does not have a consolidated doctrinal position on the subject. Finally, considerations were presented on the right to respectful dissent that individuals and religious organizations have in relation to religious marriage between people of the same sex, with the State acting
neutrally, refraining from using state force to persecute or favor one of the conceptions on a matter so sensitive and intimate to the human being. Thus, the aim was to contribute to the formulation of a proposal for a balanced solution to the conflict, which gives maximum effectiveness to the rights of religious freedom and nondiscrimination and, with this, safeguard the adequate respect for human rights by the Brazilian legal order.
Keywords: religious freedom; non-discrimination; LGBTQIA+; fundamental rights; religious marriage Ver menos
between man and woman. This dissertation aims to identify whether the refusal to celebrate religious marriage between people of the same sex is constitutional, given the collision between the fundamental rights of religious freedom and non-discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite, transsexual and transgender people, queer, intersex, asexual and other identities (LGBTQIA+). To this end, we sought to better understand the two fundamental rights in conflict, through bibliographical and documentary research, with analysis of doctrine and documents such as Brazilian constitutions, minutes of constituent national assemblies, international documents and jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of the United States of America and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Thus, initially, it was verified that Brazil adopts the model of neutral secularism, in which the State has no official religion, but guarantees the free exercise of freedom of belief and worship, in the public and private sphere, whatever the religion chosen by the individual. It was also found that the principle of proportionality is an important mechanism to identify whether or not the differentiated treatment between individuals is discriminatory, insofar as it allows the assessment of whether this treatment was appropriate and necessary to solve a given situation, as well as whether the resulting benefits outweighed the harm caused. It was also observed that in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission No. 26 (ADO), judged in 2019, the STF considered that religious speeches should not be considered homotransphobic, except when they incite discrimination, hostility or violence against people. However, the STF's decision did not specify the parameters for identifying what is discriminatory speech, in order to distinguish with certainty the boundaries between discriminatory speeches and those protected by religious freedom. At the end of this dissertation, parameters were proposed for resolving the conflict between religious freedom and the refusal to celebrate same-sex marriages, in order to identify when this refusal is constitutionally supported. The first parameter proposed was the doctrinal understanding of religion on whether or not marriage is an exclusive institute between man and woman. The second was the doctrinal understanding of the individual religious organization, which may be different or complementary to the general understanding of the respective religion, based on the freedom of association in religious matters and the selfinterpretation of their own dogmas. The third was the personal understanding of the minister of religious confession, when the religion or religious organization does not have a consolidated doctrinal position on the subject. Finally, considerations were presented on the right to respectful dissent that individuals and religious organizations have in relation to religious marriage between people of the same sex, with the State acting
neutrally, refraining from using state force to persecute or favor one of the conceptions on a matter so sensitive and intimate to the human being. Thus, the aim was to contribute to the formulation of a proposal for a balanced solution to the conflict, which gives maximum effectiveness to the rights of religious freedom and nondiscrimination and, with this, safeguard the adequate respect for human rights by the Brazilian legal order.
Keywords: religious freedom; non-discrimination; LGBTQIA+; fundamental rights; religious marriage Ver menos
Lopes, Ana Maria D´Ávila
Orientador
Pereira Júnior, Antonio Jorge
Banca examinadora
Bahia, Alexandre Gustavo Melo Franco de Moraes
Banca examinadora
Universidade de Fortaleza. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito Constitucional
Dissertação (mestrado)