As a result of the interpretation by the Venezuela´s Supreme Court, we know that the political constitution neither prohibits nor condemns homosexual unions, which are covered in the fundamental constitutional right to free development of personality; simply does not give them enhanced protection, which does not constitute an act of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation of the person.

Thus, it is pertinent to emphasize that the Constitution does not deny any rights to the union of persons of the same sex; another thing is, that does not guarantee them any special or extra protection you have to link the legislator, nor does about de facto unions between heterosexuals who are not equivalent to marriage, which itself is defined as a union between man and woman.

In fact, enjoyment of social rights, and especially economic, is perfectly possible in the case of marriages between same sex, not through the community concubinage, which would not be generated because those do not meet the requirements for it, but by an ordinary community property, in the terms of civil law permits, provided there is no fraud against the law and within the limits imposed by public order (for example, not It makes fun with the ordinary community between a married person and a different spouse, the community property between spouses).

Thus, unless the limits imposed expressed public order and the prohibition of fraud in law, there is no obstacle to the admission of the existence, between two persons of the same or opposite sex, of an ordinary community or a society whose cause is the common supply of goods or efforts, which are aimed at achieving an end, also common; as stated in the doctrine, “otherwise certainly it leads to unfair situations and could touch limit of unjust enrichment if someone has joined personal and economic efforts in a community”.