Why does this ruling only apply to one couple?

Question

In a court ruling in Buenos Aires, Argentina,

The judge ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage violated Argentina’s Constitution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/world/americas/17argentina.html
"The ruling sets no precedent beyond this case, but other gay and lesbian couples may cite it in court if their requests for marriage licenses are denied."

Sets no precedent beyond this case?
Why would this only apply to one couple, but not others?
Why doesn't any precedent exist?

Why is gay marriage only allowed for one particular couple, while it is not allowed for other gay couples?


Isn't precedent supposed to exist?

Answer 1

Because the legal system in Argentina is different than in the United States. They and most other countries except the US and the UK use Roman Law as opposed to common law. Common law relies and incorporates precedents much more than Roman Law, because the latter is strictly codified. thereby generally limiting application of judicial decisions to individual rather than groups, which in this case is really lamentable. The other possibility is that the judge did not want the case to set a precedent, since the Mayor of Buenos Aires decided to follow this decision and allow same sex couples to marry. This was very courageous, because in Argentina the Catholic Church exerts a lot of political power,

Answer 2

Precedent is binding only on a court subject to the one issuing the ruling. Since this ruling was issued by a court at the lowest level of Argentina's system, it is binding on no other court. If the court had turned them down, they had appealed, and the appeals court had found in their favor, then all courts under that appellate courts authority would have been required to follow it.



To use the US Federal system as an example, if a District Court issues a ruling, no other court is bound by it. If the case is appealed to the Circuit Court, all District Courts *in that Circuit* are bound by the Circuit Courts ruling. If the Circuits ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court, all Courts in the USA are bound by the Supreme Courts ruling.



Richard

Answer 3

It's a loop hole to let them do what the people in the state VOTED NO ON just shows if you have enough money you can buy any thing in this country look at aregovernmentt the do it all the time they buy there way in and get what they want the same way