Abstract
In eight years, the Federal Supreme Court held two particularly emblematic judgments on LGBT rights: the case of civil homosexual union (2011) and the criminalization of homophobia and transphobia (2019). The research presented in this article analyzes these cases from the perspective of Robert Dahl’s political pluralism, focusing on the analysis (i) of the Judiciary as a decision-making arena, (ii) of the change of the actors that figured as amici curiae, marked by the unprecedented presence of the Evangelical Bench and a greater representation of LGBT people in the case of the criminalization of homophobia and transphobia, and (iii) the apparent interests of the actors contrary to the judgment of the merits of the requests, revealed by the CNBB and by the Evangelical Bench.
Political pluralism; Brazilian Supreme Court; LGBT rights; amici curiae; Evangelical Bench