This article analyzes the entanglement of power relations shaping the Federal Supreme Court decision on the legal recognition of homoaffective (same sex) unions in Brazil. The decision is seen under the light of another ruling by the same Court, denying Joana da Paixão Luz pension rights derived from her partner's death. The Court claimed that the latter, Waldemar do Amor Divino, was married to another woman all along his relationship with Joana. For that reason, according the Court, the relationship between Paixão Luz and Amor Divino would not qualify as a stable union. A critique of that argument suggests that a high price is paid for the value of stability and essentialism, justifying an inquiry into the sexualized reproduction of private property.
homoaffective unions; sexuality; property; stability; essentialism; Brazil