Association of Magistrates. As regards the Same Gender Marriage law, introduced by the former socialist government in 2004 to legalize gay and lesbian couples marriage, very criticized by the Catholic Church and by the People's Party, that join the demonstrations promoted "in defense of the family", Ruiz Gallardón said that the government would await the decision of the Constitutional Court about the appeal lodged by the People's Party as soon as the law was passed by the Courts. On 30 May 2012, the government announces the approval of a draft law, developed by the Ministry of Justice, by which court fees will be raised between 50 and 750 euros. Its purpose is, according to the government, to alleviate the saturation of the courts and, at the same time, to assume the costs of legal aid, as well as to prevent conflicts that could be resolved through other means reach the courts. But, according to the opposition, this rise restricts the access of both middle-income and low-income citizens to judicial administration. The highest increases were registered in the area of the "second instance", in order, according to the government, to reduce the actions that seeks solely to prolong the procedure, as well as to reduce the burden on judicial organs. Thus, appeals in civil and contentious-administrative matters rises to 500 euros and the matching processes in those same areas are increased from 600 to 1200 euros. With respect to the Labour Court, appeal and cassation cases, which until now were free, will have charges of 500 and 700 euros, respectively. As for the complaint brought by José Manuel Benítez, member of the General Council of the Judiciary, against his president, Carlos Dívar, for suspected misusing of public funds (he would have spent about 6000 euros on travels to Puerto Banús and hotels, fact that he did not deny, but alleged its official character) finally dismissed, Ruiz Gallardón opposed the petition for the appearance of Dívar before the Congress of Deputies, filed by IU (and also subscribed by the PSOE at the last minute), alleging that there is no reason why the president of the CGDG has to go to the Parliament, because the Parliament is not competent to exercise the political control over the government body of the judiciary, but that the responsibilities of the members of the judiciary must only be required within the General Council of the Judiciary itself.