Homophobia is not constitutional opinion

A century ago, Kafka resigned: “Always bet on the world in the struggle that the individual opposes the world.” Life showed how this dismay was denied by the struggles that found their way and achieved what was previously impossible. The world did not always win, and was often won by men and women who did not give up. By world we mean ideas, prejudices, regimes, the various established powers that seem to be eternal and have fallen with the course of history.

In the fight against discrimination, the new millennium has brought new rights and, above all, a greater abundance of the word equality. The word was already included in the constitution as a fundamental right, but we all know that the law prevented its completeness. We have changed the law, put an end to discrimination in marriage and adoption, merged identity and equality: we have made great strides on rights. I think we can say today that we have changed the world thanks to many lonely, individual minority struggles that have won until they overcome the laws that oppressed them.

This week we know how worlds have yet to change. Ideas and minds that cling to the past from which we have already turned the page. Before Kafka’s ambiguous resignation, Tolstoy had written a great deal about the human mind: “The most complex subjects can be explained to the least intelligent man if he has no idea about them; But the most mundane matter cannot be clarified to the most intelligent man when he is convinced that he no doubt already knows what he is facing. “I think this is the starting point for analyzing the words of João Caupers, the newly appointed President of the Constitutional Court.

In 2011, as the country celebrated the end of marital discrimination, Caupers built a wall to contain these civilizational advances. He almost seemed to want revenge for this victory for equality, he wrote: “One thing is tolerance towards minorities and quite another, the promotion of their respective ideas: homosexuals are not enlightened avant-garde, not an elite. And in democratic societies, minorities are tolerated by the majority – not the other way around. (…) The truth – which the so-called gay lobby likes to ignore – is that homosexuals are nothing more than a meaningless minority whose voice is huge and inappropriately amplified by the media. “

While João Caupers was working against the “gay lobby”, he did not realize how absurd his analysis was. It wasn’t about whether heterosexuality was majority or homosexuality. What had changed in the country was that homophobia had ceased to be the majority. That was the victory that was celebrated and against which it was. Deep down he dared to hide the defeat of his homophobic world in a country that was advancing on the right.

There will be those who say your independence as a judge of the Constitutional Court must be respected. However, there are no judges above criticism, especially when they question one of the core principles they must defend: equality

A decade has passed and a lot has changed. What has been the subject of much discussion, what has been seen as the cause of breakage, is now part of our identity, one of those rights that no one can question because it seems so natural, so obvious, so fundamental. And after those years of deconstructing the myths and tearing the walls down, it was to be expected that João Caupers would have evolved. But it doesn’t seem.

When asked what he wrote, João Caupers’ answer is not a good sign: “In most cases I would write what I wrote again.” Homophobia doesn’t stop strolling through the Ratton Palace. The 2011 sentences, which were discriminatory and offensive to millions of men and women while being spoken by a law professor, take on a different dimension when immortalized by the President of the Constitutional Court. If not, Caupers maintains a homophobic view of society.

There will be those who say your independence as a judge of the Constitutional Court must be respected. With this they will try to silence the legitimate argument. However, there are no judges above criticism, be it political or civic, especially when they question one of the fundamental principles they must defend: equality.

The author writes according to the new orthographic convention