THE reformulation of the previous Article 68, which is currently contained in Article 82, should be interpreted as an advance in a process as complex as the reform of the most important norm in our social and political context.

Contrary to the distortion and misrepresentation that has been spread on social networks in recent days, the current article on marriage maintains its vocation of inclusion, in total harmony with the principle of equality and non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, which is also contained in the proposed constitutional text in the current Article 42.

The constitutional reference to marriage is now in a new chapter, in which families in all their diversity are addressed. Marriage is enshrined as a social and legal institution, and is recognized as one of the forms of family organization, but not the only one.

With respect to the subjects of marriage, the concept of spouses is used, a legal construction that refers to the people who have formalized their marriage bond, and that in no way limits the possibility that people of the same gender can consent to marriage as a form of legal recognition of the union they have chosen to construct. Do not doubt that Article 82 erases, in constitutional terms, any binary allusion or basis in terms of gender and the heteronormativity that characterizes the regulation of marriage that exists in the text that we are trying to reform today.

The new formulation establishes de facto unions as a novel element, without binding them to any gender; according to statistics and the opinions of experts on families in our country, this form of relationship is the most used in our society.

Another original element is the fact that no express reference is made to reproduction as the purpose of marriage or of families, which dissociates this outdated concept that meant family dynamics revolved around offspring. This, obviously, will visualize the right of people who, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity, do not conceive of reproduction as the ultimate goal of their life projects, but do decide to form families regardless.

There is no retreat; the essence of Article 68 is maintained, in fact the current wording, as I have set out, transcends the previous proposal.

We have an initial challenge – to guarantee the positive vote of the majority of our electorate in the democratic exercise scheduled for February of next year. From today and up to that date, we must strengthen communication and awareness strategies among the population to provide all the arguments that are needed.

After the referendum, and with the favorable vote of the majority of our people, in which I have every confidence, we must concentrate on the formulation of the law that will put into practice everything related to families and, in particular, to marriage.

This law, the Family Code, should be informed by the most advanced scientific positions on the subject, and we will have to take as references the similar experiences that exist internationally, but also our own social reality. The proposed amendments to the current Family Code should articulate and guarantee marriage as is constitutionally conceived – as a plural, inclusive institution, to which all people can accede without distinction.

I insist that faced with the manipulative campaigns that the counterrevolution is disseminating on social media to sabotage the referendum, promoting a No vote, we have the duty to undertake a good and rigorous campaign to inform the people and the world.

I want to make plain that the principles of the Revolution and the rights of all people are protected in the new constitutional text. Now we have to legitimize them with the Yes that we will provide in the Referendum.

Trust that the educational and transformative nature of the law will ensure justice prevails in the legislation that derives from the Constitution. Cuba needs this Constitution, and on February 24, Cuba will once again rise up, for all time.

Let’s say Yes to the Constitution, and then close ranks to achieve implementing legislation as advanced as what our new constitutional text will be.

I want to congratulate the National Assembly and emphatically, the Drafting Commission, for its rigorous work, for its conceptual and methodological contribution to this democratic exercise, and for the critical spirit it has maintained regarding its own efforts, to perfect the following processes that we will undertake.

I want to congratulate Homero Acosta for masterfully carrying out his duties as a jurist and as an educator, as he taught us deputies, but also our people.

Also the people of Cuba, for their political maturity, for their valuable contributions, and for the responsibility assumed.

Most especially, I want to congratulate an educator who has been an inspiring example in my life, who taught me that you can love the Revolution without abandoning your family, and that you can love your family without abandoning the Revolution. Thank you for your example, as a father and as a revolutionary.

(Statement by Deputy Mariela Castro Espín, during the Second Ordinary Session of the National Assembly of People’s Power’s Ninth Legislature, December 22, 2018, in which the final text of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, including recommendations stemming from the popular consultation process, was approved.)

By Pamela Constable, Updated: Thursday, May 17, 9:12 PM

The Obama administration granted a visa this week to the daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro but rejected visas for nearly a dozen other Cubans to attend an academic conference in California, angering both conservative Cuban American leaders and American scholars seeking to improve U.S.-Cuban academic ties.

Mariela Castro, 50, an advocate for gay rights and a niece of longtime communist leader Fidel Castro, will be allowed to travel to San Francisco next week for a meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, and she will later visit New York, administration officials and several American scholars confirmed Thursday.

The news provoked a flood of condemnation from Cuban American politicians, including several members of Congress, who strongly oppose the Castro government and are wary of rewarding or loosening ties with the island’s communist regime.

In a letter Thursday to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a group of legislators blasted the government’s “appalling decision to allow regime agents” from Cuba to enter the United States. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said advocates of Cuba’s government such as Mariela Castro should not be granted a platform to espouse “twisted rhetoric.”

Among American scholars who specialize in Latin America, the decision to deny visas to other prominent Cubans invited to the conference — including several who visited the United States last year — aroused equally forceful criticism.

“This is arbitrary, shameful and cowardly,” said Philip Brenner, a professor and Cuba expert at American University. “Many of these people are prominent scholars who have a history of advocating improved relations with the United States. All of them have received visas in the past. Why are they now suddenly being turned down on the grounds that they are a potential danger to the United States?”

Ted Piccone, an official in the Brookings Institution’s foreign policy program, said he was mystified by the administration’s criteria in choosing which Cubans may visit the United States. Brookings is hosting a Cuban historian and Communist Party member, Eusebio Leal, at an event in the District on Friday.

“I find it baffling. I wish I knew what their thinking was,” Piccone said. He noted that among the Cubans denied visas was Carlos Alzugaray, a former ambassador to the European Union, who was invited to a meeting at Brookings next week. Another barred figure was Rafael Hernandez, a scholar who has taught at Harvard and Columbia universities.

State Department officials declined to comment publicly on any individual visa decisions, including the reason for admitting Mariela Castro. They noted that under U.S. law, Cubans representing the Havana government or the Cuban Communist Party have been legally banned from the United States since 1985 but that exceptions are often granted on a case-by-case basis.

Officials said about 80 Cubans were invited to attend the conference in San Francisco next week. Of those, they said 41 visas have been approved, 11 have been denied and 25 are under review. They said even if an applicant is granted a visa once, later applications can be refused if new information indicates that person presents a risk.

A copy of one visa denial letter, issued last week and obtained by The Washington Post, stated that Soraya Castro Marino, who directs a study institute in Havana and was a visiting scholar at Harvard in 2010, was found ineligible this time because her presence would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” All rejected applicants reportedly received the same letter.

Mariela Castro, who directs Cuba’s National Center for Sex Education in Havana, has become a prominent advocate for gay rights. Although detractors see her as a mouthpiece for the government, others see her in a more favorable light.

“She is a champion for human rights. She is not a critic of the regime, but she is an outspoken critic of its policies,” Brenner said.

The secrecy of the visa process and the apparent contradictions in how applicants are judged make the system vulnerable to charges of political ma­nipu­la­tion. Some critics suggested Thursday that the criteria for granting Cubans visas may have more to do with the shifting mood in Washington or Havana than with an applicant’s merit.

State Department officials said they would process the remaining Cuban visa applications in the next several days.

On December 20 I was invited to attend the regular meeting of the Education, Culture, Science and Technology Commission of the National Assembly of the People’s Power, held at the International Conference Center, where Heriberto Feraudy, who chairs the José Antonio Aponte Commission against Racial Discrimination of the Union of Cuban Artists and Writers (UNEAC) talked about the race problem in Cuba. It was the excellent presentation of a summary of previous discussions about this issue.

I asked from the floor from the section assigned to guests and took the opportunity to introduce myself as Director of the National Center for Sex Education (CENESEX) and member of the Aponte Commission, and gave them my opinion about how we have approached and worked on this topic. As with any other form of discrimination, racism has a socioeconomic origin found in the relations of domination imposed by the power groups in class societies.

Whoever suffers from racial problems also suffers from other forms of discrimination based on their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic status, location, religion, ethnic extraction, language and many other excuses to blow up any individual or collective feature out of all proportion with a view to its use as a tool of domination.

My views sparked off an in-depth discussion among the legislators who made up this Commission. The most interesting thing about the debate was that it took the cross-sectional relationship among multiple forms of discrimination as the starting point for analysis, to which end plenty of eloquent examples were mentioned about Cuba’s present situation. Miguel Barnet, Abel Prieto, Ricardo Alarcón and Zuleica Romay made enlightening interventions in the same spirit.

I quoted Fernando Martínez Heredia, who says that socialism is a process of cultural transformation, which practice has proved to be true after 53 years of Revolution. If we don’t design permanent educational and communication strategies –as CENESEX has done in the last few years in the field of sexual orientation and gender identity– our society won’t be able to implement the cultural changes it intends to do for the sake of emancipation and full justice.

There were comments about the need to establish legislation against all forms of discrimination that, I believe, must make special emphasis on the definition of their specific ways of expression. Beyond any criminal penalties, we must undertake a far-reaching work based on dialogue about and participation in this complicated effort to change our way of thinking.