Comments on: Portugal’s marriage bill forwarded to Supreme Court http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21119 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:37:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Hall http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21119/comment-page-1#comment-64592 Hall Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:28:26 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21119#comment-64592 He is sending the bill to the supreme court on the basis that a constitutional amendment is needed to change the marriage code, which is the question on the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage bill. http://dn.sapo.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1520013 It will be interesting to see how this pans out in comparison to the Italian supreme court case on same-sex marriage, considering that they are going to be ruled on at around the same time. He is sending the bill to the supreme court on the basis that a constitutional amendment is needed to change the marriage code, which is the question on the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage bill.

http://dn.sapo.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1520013

It will be interesting to see how this pans out in comparison to the Italian supreme court case on same-sex marriage, considering that they are going to be ruled on at around the same time.

]]> By: Bruno http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21119/comment-page-1#comment-64547 Bruno Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:01:15 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21119#comment-64547 The court has up to 25 days to review the requests. It is a different question than last year's...whether or not the *bill* passed by the legislature is constitutional in its different parts, not whether prohibiting same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. I would guess there are at least 2 votes in favor of the bill's legality, and most likely more than that. The court has up to 25 days to review the requests. It is a different question than last year’s…whether or not the *bill* passed by the legislature is constitutional in its different parts, not whether prohibiting same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. I would guess there are at least 2 votes in favor of the bill’s legality, and most likely more than that.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21119/comment-page-1#comment-64476 Timothy Kincaid Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:49:16 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21119#comment-64476 Jutta, That was also my thought. If that is the case, this may be simply a method by which Silva justifies signing the bill or allowing it to go into effect. But I just don't know enough. Jutta,

That was also my thought. If that is the case, this may be simply a method by which Silva justifies signing the bill or allowing it to go into effect.

But I just don’t know enough.

]]> By: Fred in the UK http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21119/comment-page-1#comment-64472 Fred in the UK Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:30:23 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21119#comment-64472 @Braiden, I have no particular knowledge of the Portuguese Constitutional Court, however many European Constitutional Courts, are reluctant to strike down laws properly passed by national legislative assemblies. In reply to the original question, I suspect that the President does not want to sign controversial legislation only for it then to be subject to a hearing by the Constitutional Court. I would be interested to know how long the Court will take to respond to the President's request. @Braiden, I have no particular knowledge of the Portuguese Constitutional Court, however many European Constitutional Courts, are reluctant to strike down laws properly passed by national legislative assemblies.

In reply to the original question, I suspect that the President does not want to sign controversial legislation only for it then to be subject to a hearing by the Constitutional Court. I would be interested to know how long the Court will take to respond to the President’s request.

]]> By: Jutta Zalud http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21119/comment-page-1#comment-64449 Jutta Zalud Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:52:57 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21119#comment-64449 As far as I remember last years decision, the question before the court was, whether same-sex marriage *must* be allowed according to the constitution, it was not, if ig *may* be allowed. As far as I remember last years decision, the question before the court was, whether same-sex marriage *must* be allowed according to the constitution, it was not, if ig *may* be allowed.

]]> By: Braiden http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21119/comment-page-1#comment-64443 Braiden Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:01:21 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21119#comment-64443 "In a narrow 3-to-2 decision last year, the court denied a lesbian couple the right to marry, despite a provision in the constitution that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." If that's not personal anti-gay bias then I don't know what is. “In a narrow 3-to-2 decision last year, the court denied a lesbian couple the right to marry, despite a provision in the constitution that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

If that’s not personal anti-gay bias then I don’t know what is.

]]>