Same-Sex Marriage: a False Move
By Repatriado
HAVANA TIMES – The LGBTQI community has insisted on joining an archaic institution which they were never really excluded from, to be honest. They have preferred to do this instead of being the avant-garde of the struggle for a real freedom to love, thereby falling into a trap which is very similar to imitation, anti-social behavoir or worse yet, a display of the group’s insecurity and low self-esteem.
Was the LGBTQI community really excluded from the institution of Marriage? Not at all, we all have the same right and the same limitations within the legal framework which was understood (and which most people still understand) to be Marriage.
Like every other right, our right to marry is mediated by social consensus and depends on what the majority of society conceives it to be. For example, property rights in Victorian England aren’t the same as they are in Sioux culture; both of these societies have a different consensus about this right and it’s what the majority think that defines it.
Today, nobody is denied the right to marry, whether they are a LGBTIQ person or not. Have they not wanted to exercise this right in the manner it has been established? Great for them. Do they want to change the law and adapt it to a social minority’s understanding at a grassroots level because this doesn’t affect the majority? I think that’s great and they should be demanding this. Does the law need changing because it’s unfair and discriminatory? No, it isn’t unfair nor is it discriminatory. It’s just what it is and it needs to be changed if there is a social consensus. Is there consensus?
Now, I wonder: does the LGBTQI community agree with keeping the ban that exists on polygamous, incestuous or zoophilic marriages? I hope they do because this would be very hypocritical on their part. If the LGBTQI community is rejecting the traditional conceptualization of Marriage as the legal union between a man and woman, what would their argument be to not go one step further and approve of all consensual unions that don’t harm either party involved or the rest of society? What grounds would they have to argue against this? Freud would be very happy.
The activist focus that the LGBTQI community has adopted on this subject bothers me. I am bothered by the fact that they are making the inexistence of a right into a rejection of this same right. What many of the LGBTQI community want is a new law to be created, not for a discriminatory situation to be restored, let’s make that perfectly clear.
Today, everyone can join the institution of Marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation, as long as they meet the regulations that society has established. Therefore, discrimination doesn’t exist, it only exists when a LGBTQI person is told they can’t work somewhere or get a student grant because they are LGBTQI; this is discrimination because it puts them at an unfair and degrading disadvantage to a heterosexual person. However, the law is the same for everyone when it comes to Marriage, this discrimination doesn’t exist.
The way I see it, the objective goes beyond what is really practical or fair and instead focuses on how society works, on the typical affirmative bragging to overcompensate for their insecurities. Are they really after the legal advantages that the social institution called “Marriage” provides?
Clearly they aren’t because there is already a law that covers every legal issue that being married might imply, such as Unmarried Partnerships or Union, with the exception of the word “Marriage” being reserved for the legal union of two people of different sexes who choose to do this formality.
Changing what is socially accepted to be “Marriage” is what they are really after. This demand from a minority can be fairly taken up and discussed with the majority, but not by using emotional blackmail, making it seem like a right of theirs is being violated and that they are at a disadvantage or that the socially accepted heteronormative formula discriminates because this is all false and ideologized.
It would have been of greater benefit to everyone if the LGBTQI community had fought to overthrow the unjustified and patriarchal nationalization of love and family, instead of fighting to be a part of it, demanding that the State keeps it nose out of the organization of marriage, when it doesn’t have to do with child protection of course.
It would have done us all a lot of good if LGBTQI community had pushed for a culture of contempt with regard to formalizing intimate relationships and had made free unions between people a trend, who only have to sign a contract in front of a notary if that’s what they want to do, including the points they want to abide by, rights, obligations, wills and distribution of assets without anyone telling them how they should live their relationship or share their assets.
In Cuba, the Government will use this demand (which is absolutely harmless to national politics) to appear modern, progressive and attentive to minorities’ demands, thereby replacing a crucial debate about basic rights and values to build a democratic society for all instead.
Will the Cuban LGBTQI community really be happy when they can get married but aren’t free to elect their president, create art without political restrictions or organize themselves independently?
Freedom…including that to marry or not marry…is not for one man to allow another. Nor is choice. Nor is opinion. That being said, why would you spit at each other over this? Ego.
This is positive. This is progress. This is a process, not an event.
You Dani told a new contributor to not believe what I wrote and then provided incorrect information yourself. Obviously as one who never criticizes the Castro regime, you resent the truth. The truth Dani is that Cuba is a One Party State by law. Of course you didn’t use that term because you don’t want to admit that the now supposedly “socialist” regime is communist, totalitarian, dictatorial and repressive
Now in retaliation for being corrected, you endeavour to smear me by comparison with Trump. You really are pathetic!
Your trouble is that you don’t wish to know or accept the truth about the reality of Cuba. To you it is some sort of interesting academic subject, whereas for me it is where my home, family, friends and community daily struggle under the imposition of that One Party State. They have no alternative – but maybe that is because they cannot access Wikipedia and learn that there are the other political parties you claim.
As I say, I have never been married.
Never felt the need for it. Perhaps because, like you, I think of it as an ‘institution’.
But is marriage an ‘institution’ or a ‘right’ ?
For you, Repatriado, it’s an ‘institution’. Perhaps for me too. ?
But for those who have never had access to that possibility, maybe they regard it as a ‘right’.
Anybody that struggles for their ‘rights’ in Cuba or anywhere else and achieves their ‘rights’ then I take my hat off to them.
Anyone who previously did not have access to that possibility can now decide for themselves if they think it is an ‘institution’ or whatever else ??
They now have that choice.
Choice is better than No Choice wouldn’t you agree ???
I don´t disagree, but I respect the right of many people to want to save the noun Married to man-woman and I don´t see how that can be a problem either for LGTBI community.
what I say is that Married is a social construction, so it must be modified only under social consent, because the consent now about Marriage as a Union man woman do not violate any right.
I am married, twice, but I have not any respect for that institution
If you read my piece you will see that I didn’t use the term one-party state. The problem with labels and descriptions have several meanings. You can take the literal, technical meaning or there is a more general use. Also there is a metaphoric use of the term. People often mix these up. That is why I tend to avoid using them.
I take exception to your comments regarding Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great source of information. But I also pointed you to a number of Havana Times articles, Yoanni Sanchez’s blog, and a book on the subject. You only ever refer to a book you wrote yourself and like Trump you claim anything you disagree with is fake news.
Repatriado,
I’m not married. And I might not wish to get married for whatever reason.
No problem.
People of opposite sex have the right to get married.
No problem.
If people of the same sex wish to get married….
Again……
No problem.
How can you possibly disagree with any of that?
Hi Nick, I understand you do that analyses about the background of my speech in this article, and after Freud I cannot deny that in some degree you could be right, but as far as I can be aware, my analyses is not based in my anti-government position.
I developed this position some time ago, during the discussion of this topic in Spain, where I supported completely the change because in a democratic country the majority is a consent and the law approved is a reflex of that consent.
To understand my position I recommend you to read the discussion about this article in the Spanish version of HT
Important, I am always open to re-think and to change my mind, that is a core principle I try to humbly show to my fellow citizen son lack of democratic education and spirit in general.
The fact Dani is that Cuba is a ONE PARTY State. Even Wikipedia can’t change that!
The LGBTQI community in Cuba campaigned for the right to get married.
They achieved this right. Good for them. I have dear Cuban friends who will now planning to marry due to this change. And I am delighted for them.
Cuba has become the 26th out of nearly 200 countries to legalise same-sex marriage.
That is a positive.
It doesn’t matter how much ‘The Usual Suspects’ try to twist it around to be a negative, it is undeniably positive news.
Why do certain people try to twist this development around and wrongly try to present it as some kind of negative ??
Because ‘positives’ don’t fit so neatly into the overly straightforward narrative that they like to portray.
That’s why.
Repatriado, I respect you.
I may not always agree with everything you say but I do understand the points you are making. However, this article just makes no sense to me.
It just comes across as a refusal to admit that this is a positive and progressive move because to do so would not fit well with your (understandable) anti-government stance.
I would humbly suggest that you have a re-think on this particular issue.
I didn’t describe Cuba as anything nor did I put any value judgment or opinion. I simply corrected factual errors and pointed to the evidence to back it up.
All this supposed pandering to the LGBTQI community in Cuba is a calculated way of distracting attention away from the reality of the “new” Constitution, the purpose of which is to further consolidate the power and control of communist dictatorship.
The reality is that for the average Cuban, nothing changes, the repression continues with the dictatorship retaining its total power and control. Just as Fidel Castro was the author of the “old” Constitution, Raul Castro is the author of the “new” Constitution.
There is no change, all the freedoms which are the norm in the capitalist countries, are denied in Cuba. The supposed vote of approval by the people of Cuba will be reported as 97% with no dissenters, and the National Assembly will take out the rubber stamp and approve it unanimously.
It is interesting that some people like Dani, will accept those supposed votes as democratic – he even apparently believes that Cuba is a multi-party democracy.