A possibilidade de duas pessoas do mesmo gênero se casar, conviver em união estável e constituir família no Brasil foi uma conquista por meio das Cortes. Passada mais de uma década da decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal que reconheceu a união homoafetiva ainda não foi aprovada qualquer legislação sobre o tema. Nesse contexto, o presente artigo investiga a estabilidade dos direitos da família homoafetiva reconhecidos pelo Poder Judiciário a partir da análise das propostas legislativas que foram distribuídas na Câmara dos Deputados e no Senado Federal, dividida em dois períodos: 2011 a 2018 (54ª e 55ª Legislaturas) e 2019 a 2020 (56ª Legislatura). A pesquisa aponta que, quando comparados esses dois períodos, houve relevantes mudanças com relação (i) ao volume e valoração da atividade legislativa; (ii) aos atores que estão se mobilizando em torno do tema e (iii) ao que tem impulsionado a distribuição das propostas legislativas.
Abstract Introduction This article addresses the processes that led to the recognition of LGBT rights in Brazil, the role played by civil society mobilization, and the interaction between the Federal Supreme Court and the National Congress in these processes.
Methods The study's primary method is document analysis. Our sample was established in 2021 and includes four court decisions and 93 law proposals presented from 2011 to 2020 by 83 legislators whose profiles are also analysed (data collected in 2021). Moreover, the article references secondary source interviews conducted in 2017 and 2018.
Results The Federal Supreme Court was responsible for all the LGBT rights recognized at the federal level in Brazil. Our data shows that federal legislators, on the other hand, have been unable to make bills focused on LGBT rights (pro or against) pass. Some highlights from the results show that 46.2% of the proposals on the matter are contrary to those rights, and 48.2% of the legislators who mobilize the matter are affiliated with the Evangelical Bench, an influential conservative institution in the Brazilian National Congress. Although not yet able to make law proposals pass, those legislators with a conservative profile tend to use LGBT rights as political currency by presenting bills or making speeches against these rights. They also play a role in not allowing pro-LGBT rights achievements in the legislative arena. Aware of the legislators' profile, civil society organizations tend not to focus all their efforts on this arena and to take or create legal opportunities, even though the path through courts still represents several obstacles. Moreover, although the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has shown a willingness to decide on LGBT rights, the outcomes of the rulings depend on the composition of the body, which is influenced by nominations made by the president. That is, the same court Brazil has relied on to recognize LGBT rights could be responsible for denying them had it had the same powers but different members.
Conclusions While the deadlock in the Federal Congress persists, and the judicial decisions that recognized LGBT rights remain effective, LGBT persons continue to exercise their conquered rights. However, the conservative wave in Brazil places the country in a context of uncertainty and vulnerability with regard to LGBT rights.
Policy Implications This study's contribution lies in showing why Brazil is an unpaired case when it comes to LGBT rights recognition and how vulnerable these conquered rights are in the country. The article provides an overview of the recognition processes taking multiple arenas and actors into account. Therefore, the analyses and the database of law proposals fill a gap in the literature and can contribute to future work from both scholars (for example, other studies from the database) and practitioners (for example, the development of legal mobilization frames and strategies).
