Críticas de Atienza y García Amado a la decisión constitucional ecuatoriana del matrimonio igualitario.

Abstract

This academic study consists of a reconstruction of the theoretical perspectives of law philosophers Juan Antonio García Amado and Manuel Atienza Rodríguez, two important exponents of the contemporary theory(ies) of legal argumentation in the Ibero-american world, in relation to the negative criticisms issued by them to the decisions of the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court that recognized the right of people of the same sex to marry. These jurists have different conceptions of Law, positivist and post-positivist, which allow us to analyze their criticisms from two opposing theories. Through the synthesis of the arguments of the judges who wrote the majority opinions and the critical analysis of the criteria issued by the aforementioned legal philosophers, I have developed my appreciation of the importance and correctness of their criticisms, as well as about the decisions of the Constitutional Court. My conclusion is that the Constitutional Court acted in compliance with the constitutional principles and the rights recognized by the State: the inclusion in the so-called block of constitutionality of international human rights instruments.