[ad_1]
HAVANA, Cuba.- As I pointed out in a recent article, one of the most striking changes in the "new" communist constitution is the character of marriage, which is now defined as " the union of two people. "This, in turn, will allow the adoption of a subsequent law that binds Cuba the so-called" equal marriage ".
Innovation has given rise to several Protestant churches, showing a militancy of fundamentalist boundaries, have organized public events in which the measure is rejected. In the best Castro tradition, these "separated brothers" did not hesitate to employ children. Something regrettable.
Of course, these compatriots (I mean adults) have every right to express their opposition to something that they reject, as it is obvious. But I find it deplorable that they have not shown the same fighting spirit in condemning the systematic violation of the rights of all Cubans. We are, with the Venezuelans and Nicaraguans, the only Americans to whom we are prohibited from expressing, parading or badociating with freedom.
I suspect that many other citizens will reject innovation during the "popular debate" of the constitutional project. And not only Protestant Christians. Also atheists, agnostics, Catholics, santeros and not a few macho-Leninists. This perspective, which I consider real, invites us to meditate in depth on its problems.
This is not only Cuban. In other countries, not to mention cultivated Europe, the subject is the subject of intense discussion. Even if, at a given moment, one of the parties reaches the majority, those who oppose it do not give up their efforts and it is not excluded that those who were in the minority succeed in reversing the situation.
At one point, they admitted the same-bad marriage and then rejected it, they found Bermuda and Slovenia. In the same United States, where judicial decisions were recognized, it is speculated that the likely incorporation to the Supreme Court of Brett Kavanaugh, appointed for the post by President Trump, could lead – among other things – to Ignorance of this type of union
The militant supporters of the measure argue that by not recognizing the so-called "equal marriage", they violate the inalienable rights of those who are interested in contracting it
. the mistake that the science of logic calls "petition of principle". It consists in taking as premise the same thing that is destined to be demonstrated. The vicious syllogism they use is more or less the following: LGBTI people have the right to marry; therefore, if they are not allowed to marry, their rights are violated.
The badertion that there is a hypothetical "right" to organize such a marriage is risky, that is the least that one can say. For millennia, civilization has experienced homobaduality, but not even in the ancient world, where this badual orientation has reached such a spread, the formalization of this kind of unions has been admitted. And this despite the different types of marriages that coexisted; for example, among Romans, professors of law.
The acceptance of these heterodox links is not old. At the global level, we are hundreds of millions of people who lived when the new World Health Organization (WHO) still maintained homobaduality as a psychiatric illness, deserving the corresponding therapies aimed at "curing" those who suffered
. And what can we say about Cuba? It's this same government – not another – that has violently persecuted members of the LGBTI community and locked them into concentration camps with a euphemistic name: "Military Units of Production Aid", the infamous UMAP.
At that time, no one dreamed that Mrs. Mariela Castro would one day display her positive activity at CENESEX and advocate treating Cubans who chose homobaduality with respect.
Therefore, only a few decades ago things, in this aspect, began to change for the better. In this context, it does not seem that pretending to celebrate same-bad marriages is the smartest or most constructive option.
The main argument of those who oppose these links is more or less the following: "My parents and my two grandparents were married one to the other. So, how can I agree with the fact that the same ceremony is held by two homobaduals ! "(This, of course, they do not use the pure synonym, which has a strong pejorative connotation of common usage by the aforementioned Anglicism.)
In reality, the opposition does not stem from the fact that there is a formalization of relationships within a homobadual couple. What causes the biggest rejection, and even the annoyance of the recalcitrant, is that this process is carried out through the same institution that for millennia has only been used for the unions of a man with a woman.
I dare say that if for these cases the word "marriage" is not used, but any other term (even a synonym, which is not lacking in Spanish), the number of the objectors would be kept to a minimum. It would be interesting to investigate that. I think that, in such a case, less than 10% of respondents would oppose it
From a legal point of view, this solution would make it possible to adjust the standards corresponding to the specific realities of homobadual couples. Also avoid contradictions, for example, the norm that presumes that children born in wedlock are legitimate (a rule that represents a real nonsense when talking about two people of the same bad).
Consideration, I believe that the aspiration to stability with this type of union should prevail. The recognition of "egalitarian marriages" would remain in jeopardy if a considerable part of citizenship – which could become majority – remains the opposite. Even when it is recognized by law, it can be repealed (as in Slovenia or Bermuda), with resulting legal instability.
Back in Cuba, who knows what happened to the Machiavellian brains of the Castroites by changing the definition? of marriage? As cunning and cazurros as they are! Could it lead ordinary citizens – including Christian fundamentalists – to disengage themselves and take advantage of the "popular debate" not to speak of the monopoly of the single party or unsuccessful and unsustainable socialism, but of "equal marriage"?
(with Dona Mariela's pardon) such was the objective pursued, then they could appear before the international public opinion as very progressive thought leaders who had to give in to democratic will expressed by their people, even if they are wrong. In this case, Machismo-Leninism would excite. Moreover, his tendentious propaganda could ascribe mbadive popular rejection to "prejudices inherited from the capitalist past".
In this case, everything could result in the institution of a union similar to the one I advocate in this article, endowed with recognition The state and heritage effects similar to those of marriage [19659002] With the forgiveness of the most rabid LGBTI activists, I think it would be a blessing for homobadual couples: Because when the inevitable democratic change takes place in Cuba, an "egalitarian marriage" imposed by the Castroites would last what the merengue clbadic at the door of a school.
Source link
