Alright! Found looots of pics of her just by searching for the name. Specially a thread dedicated entirely to her in 4chan XD But please, send them!
About the so called "gay marriage", the confusion is quite common, and even the Brazilian media didn't quite get the point (I'm Brazilian, in case you're wondering
). Just as in US, a judgment creates a precedent, something that may be brought up by lawyers to defend the interests of his clients or by judges and courts to use as base for other judgments (the right word for "base" would be "fundaments", at least in a direct translation, but in here that is the Squire's skill set /o/). However, unlike US, that is not the most important foundation of the judge's decision, and a judge could, indeed, not agree with a decision by the Supreme Court and rule against what was said previously (that decision, however, will probably not hold; STF's sayings are so strong that probably any appeal will have the decision changed. STF is Brazil's Supreme Court, btw XD Full name is Superior Tribunal Federal); the most important foundation for the judge's decision will always be the law, and in countries that follow the Civil Law tradition (continental Europe, ibero-american former colonies, etc. United States, England and pretty much all the other former English colonies follow the Common Law system) everything that is regarded as being worthy of state tutelage is IDEALLY codified in some law or other. It is unlawful to adjudicate against the law unless a very strong reason is presented or the law simply doesn't connect to reality any more (until very recently, adultery was a penal crime, that is, you could go to jail if you cheated your wife/husband; the law that said that is from 1940, though, so this was pretty much ignored from the 70's forward. This was revoked by another law in 2005, though, so even if some crazy judge wanted to condemn someone to a few years in jail because of a kiss outside the marriage, this wouldn't be possible). Judges may otherwise only give a judgment outside of the law if there is no law regulating the case.
This was, more or less, the case. Brazil's Civil Code (the code that has most of the general laws guiding the civilian's lives) explicitly states, in it's 1.514th Article that "The marriage takes place in the moment that man and woman declare, in front of the judge, their wish to establish conjugal bonds, and the judge declares them married." Also, on stable unions, 1.723rd Article says that "It is recognized as a familiar entity the stable union between man and woman, configured by public, continuous and lasting companionship and established with the objective of creating a family" (sorry for the cheesy translation, it is not very easy to convey exactly what is said). However, the Civil Code does not say that same-sex unions are NOT a familiar entity. What's more important, our Constitution ALSO never says that same-sex unions are a familiar entity, it only explicitly says that heterosexual unions are so.
The STF, then, just set a precedent for same-sex couples to have their condition of stable union recognized as a familiar entity by the state, with all the rights and obligations that entails, all that based on principles such as human and civil rights
But as I said earlier, that is but the first step. These couples will have to have their condition declared by a judge after a due, long process (they might even have to appeal if the judge doesn't agree with their claim), whereas in a straight marriage all you have to do is declare your wishes in front of a judge and in a straight union the condition is presumed (i.e.: if a guy has been living with his girlfriend for 5 years straight, it is presumed that they are enjoying a stable union). To have the same "automatic" rights as the heterosexual couples, our senators and representatives would have to put that command into law. And boy, are they lazy...
That said, it is a VERY important first step. Same-sex couples can now have their rights recognized, whereas before the didn't have ANY rights (save the odd decision of some progressionist judge that decided to adjudicate the right of adoption to a couple; otherwise, those couples would have one of the pair to adopt the child as a single parent, and the kid wouldn't have the right to be the heir to the other person). Specially when you have in mind that Brazil is the single largest catholic country in the world (i.e.: have the largest catholic population in the world); even proportionally (90%+), most are still catholic.
About the lobby situation, it is not a very clear subject. Technically it is a crime, since taking money as a senator or representative to represent someone's interests is plain bribery at most, and improbity at least, and both senators and representatives should represent the claims of those who put those in their positions, namely the voters. There is a very intense, if not very open, ongoing discussion on the subject though. Should lobby be explicitly legal? Should lobbyists be then registered, taking into account both their sponsors and their interests? Should private companies be able to freely fund a candidate's campaign (they actually can, but there is a limit to the value of that sponsorship, if I'm not mistaken)? Or should we just say that senator's and representative's claims must echo the claims of the voters that actually put them there? Those are not easy questions to answer, and they are certainly not the only ones being made on the subject. As it stands NOW, it is simply illegal to have someone with political powers to favor some economic faction or another, "just for the sake of it".
Well, that's it! I tried to be as clear as possible, but on such mind-consuming topics, I tend to get a little verbose (even in Portuguese!) and sometimes I just can't express everything I'm thinking, specially because when I get to writing I simply can't remember all that XD If there's anything shady or not clear, or any doubt on anything I've said, please, let me know and I'll try as best as I can to explain P.S.: In case you're wondering, I'm at the last year of Law school XD I'm also an economist, but that's not (as) important on these subjects =)