RULING: Chilean Supreme Court Rules Against Gay Marriage

The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled against an application for protection in favor of equal marriage filed by three gay couples and Movilh, as reported by the organization of sexual diversity also announced an international lawsuit against the State of Chile in the wake of this judgment.

In the ruling the judges Hector Carreno, Peter Pierry, Maria Eugenia Sandoval, Juan Escobar Deputy Minister and Attorney Gorziglia Arnaldo said the rejection of the Civil Registry to marry Oct. 20, 2010 a gay couple and recognize the link the two contracted abroad, "is not an illegal act."

This, as the Civil Registry "was adjusted to the provisions" in Articles 102 of the Civil Code and 80 of Law 19,947 of Marriage, where it first states that marriage is only for heterosexuals and the second recognizes only those marriages contracted abroad by opposite sex couples.

These items, according to the decision are "clear about the meaning and scope, without there being a rule of legal hermeneutics applied to the case that could lead to a different conclusion, namely that in our legal system which is referred to as marriage same-sex."

They said that should "be noted that control of the constitutionality of laws belongs to the Constitutional Court, and in these conditions is not feasible for this court by this judgment to unravel whether Article 102 of the Civil Code are satisfied or dissatisfied with constitutional norms."

Known fault, Movilh noted that "the judiciary has again lost a historic opportunity to give a signal against discrimination and for equality guaranteed by the Constitution, so We will establish a complaint against the Chilean government before the Inter-Human Rights Court. "

For Movilh, "this failure is not only reprehensible for its conclusion, but also for their contents. In no case is responsible whether the current marriage laws violate or not the principle of equality guaranteed in our constitution."

By contrast "wash your hands scheme grossly contradicts the issues raised by the very Court of Appeals that the case originated from, which was clear in stating that only the judiciary will determine whether or not a law violated the Constitution. This contradiction reflects the brutal arbitrariness of judges to uphold the Constitution."

Indeed, the December 9, 2011 the Court of Appeals of Santiago held that "it is this Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court of Justice Excellency, the only ones called to determine if a case has been committed illegality or arbitrariness that has violated the rights that the Republic Constitution guarantees to all people."

Source: BioBioChile