Cuba’s new constitution and marriage equality

LAS TUNAS – Alerts against extremism regarding marriage and love relationships are everywhere now that the issue is being hotly debated in Cuba in relation to the mass consultation for the draft of the Constitution of the Republic.

The controversy revolves around Article 68 of the proposed Magna Carta that redefines marriage as the union between two people, which would open the possibility that same-sex couples formalize their status before the law. Press reports indicate that this would probably be one of the few parts of the constitutional text that will not go unnoticed in the discussion forums throughout the archipelago. In a survey conducted by the weekly newspaper Escambray, in the province of Sancti Spíritus, more than half of the respondents said that this is the issue that most catches their attention within what would be the new constitution.

There is no unanimity

It was evident that the new definition of marriage would be controversial prior to the presentation of the constitutional draft in the National Assembly of Popular Power. In contrast to the current 1976 Constitution, the transformation is fundamental since in that one marriage is conceptualized as the union between a man and a woman.

Objections came as early as June 28, when the Assemblies of the Evangelical Pentecostal Church of God, the Western and Eastern Baptist Conventions, the Evangelical League of Cuba and the Methodist Church in Cuba publicly publicized their opposition to marriage equality, while their parishioners have disseminated graphic messages stating their adherence to what they call the “original design” of the family.

Last week Monsignor Dionisio García, Catholic archbishop of Santiago de Cuba, described the marriage equality proposal as something “new and unexpected” and far from the “feeling and wisdom of the people.” The president of the Conference of Bishops of Cuba attributed the idea to “cultural imperialism.” Adding that “It is a new ideological colonialism,” and said that even non-believers were against Article 68.

Elsewhere, the Metropolitan Community Church in Cuba dissociated itself from these positions, which it categorized as fundamentalist, while questioning the theological bases of the discriminatory attitudes toward people with non-heteronormative sexual and gender identities. “We need to have a dialogue of peace,” they insisted.

To defend their opposition to the legalization of the homo-parental couple, other lawsuits that circulate in social networks brand it as an elective and unnatural link from the biological; they consider it a nexus that does not generate a social good because, they say, by not reproducing they slow down the development of society. In some discussion forums there are those who have claimed to be in agreement with marriage equality, but not to the point of accepting that two people of the same sex united before the law can adopt boys or children. More extreme positions even call for a separate vote, or otherwise stating that they will oppose the constitutional text in its entirety.

However, Homero Acosta Álvarez, Secretary of the Council of State, defended Article 68 before the country’s parliament saying that it “reinforces those principles of humanism and equality” of the Revolution. In the same forum, Mariela Castro Espín, director of the National Center for Sexual Education (CENESEX), warned that “it would be a contradiction to recognize discrimination against sexual orientation and not recognize discrimination against the union of homo-parental couples.”

Yolanda Ferrer, one of Vilma Espin’s closest cooperators, and founder and president until her death in 2007 of the Federation of Cuban Women (FMC), back then said that for the female leader, “sexual freedom was possible and dignified and that people of the same sex could be happy.” She said, “In 1974 when the Family Code was analyzed to see what should be included that she had considered marriage between two persons, but that conditions were not right for such a proposal.” Now that it’s been proposed, it is time to take the next step.

Let’s start with rights

Two years before the new constitution was even a reality, Dr. Martha Prieto Valdés, Dr. Rafael Roselló Manzano and Yamila González were already asking several crucial questions: “Is the old notion of the two-parent family still the only acceptable one? Is heterosexuality a biosocial requirement to form a family? Shouldn’t people be free to determine what kind of family they want to form.”

From their point of view, the relevance or not of marriage equality is inextricably linked to the triptych of freedom-equality-intimacy rights that should be understood as essential. The three University of Havana law professors added that the family is relevant as it fulfills the triple function of maintenance of its members, of reproduction and education and satisfaction of the affective needs. Certainly, they admitted, a couple of the same sex constituting a family could not exercise the reproductive function. But, they noted, “the same happens with heterosexual couples who can not have offspring and nobody would dare to think that they are not able to constitute a family.” Regarding the satisfaction of economic, affective-spiritual and educational needs, they estimated that “the sexual orientation of the members of the couple is totally indifferent to their effective fulfillment.”

They did not deny the legal repercussions that marriage equality would have, but they considered them soluble. They stressed that “legal regulations can and should act as a catalyst for social change and provide for the full freedom, equality and dignity of all people without distinction, as well as their development and fulfillment.”

Options

It is impossible to predict what side the people will take on the issue of marriage equality. The leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba has already made clear its opinion in favor, and now has turned over the draft constitution to the citizens. So, in part, the process will also demonstrate the people’s backing of the country’s leadership. 

“When people vote on this issue of whether to endorse the changes, Cuban society’s support of the country’s Communist Party will be put to the test,” said Dr. Dario Machado.

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez emphasized that the challenge is considerable because it will be the debate among the citizenry that will determine the guidelines for the final version of the new constitution.

Even if most of the opinions were in favor of keeping Article 68 in the proposed text, not everything will have have ended. Carrying out such transformation will not be easy. It would require understanding the meaning of Cuba being a State of Law and, especially, a lay one, before those who continue to consider homo-parental families, at most, as a necessary evil.

And what if the majority is opposed to Article 68? Would the definition of marriage be maintained as it is in the 1976 Constitution?

Such an outcome could be interpreted as a tactical retreat in order to avoid social fracture. This would be the case even if the explicit definition of marriage within the Constitution were to be avoided. But not even that would calm down those opposed to marriage equality. And it would not stop them from casting a punishment vote because of some other issue — having nothing to do with hetero-parental marriage — in the final text.

One might ask about the long-term consequences of such a result since marriage equality is one of the basic principles of the constitutional text: equal rights.