“El Codigo de las familias”, the family code (that’s its official name) was approved in Cuba with just over 66% of the vote in a referendum held on Sunday, September 25. This is a revolution in a part of the world that is rather conservative on social issues. The text is a complete overhaul of rights: legalization of same-sex marriage, transsexuality, surrogacy (called “solidarity gestation”), adoption by same-sex couples. The code also reinforces the rights of children and people with disabilities.
Its adoption implies its immediate entry into force. In this country of 11 million inhabitants still held with an iron fist by the communist regime, this referendum turned into a plebiscite for the power in place because the government had led an intense campaign in favor of yes. This September 25 again, the day of the vote, President Miguel Diaz Canelheir to the dynasty of Fidel and Raul Castro, dramatized the issue by linking it to the legitimacy of the regime: “This family code is a tribute to the ambition of Fidel and Raul, to the humanist heritage of the Cuban revolution, this code is loyal to the very concept of revolution.” It is also interesting to note the central role played during the campaign by Raul Castro’s daughter, Mariela, a very committed activist for LGBTQI+ rights.
Voting for this overhaul of rights was therefore also voting for power and this was one of the dilemmas for voters. Moreover, the participation rate (74%) is low for Cuba. The approval rate (66%) is also relatively low in a country where it is risky to say “No”. And where of course, only the power had the floor in the audiovisual media during the campaign. The opponents of the text were in fact numerous.
First, the opponents on the merits: Cuba is a country that remains quite religious (we remember the jubilation in Havana during the papal visits, John-Paul II in 1998, Francis in 2015) and the Catholic, Evangelical Churches , Afro-Cubans, all opposed this text. Second category: a part of the homosexual community which denounced the opportunism of the communist power, while this same power never offered a real apology for having, in the 1960s, openly practiced homophobia by interning hundreds of people in re-education camps.
Finally, the third category concerns political opponents. They are potentially in favor of reform, but eager to use the occasion to express their disagreement with the regime. Because a referendum in Cuba is extremely rare: it is only the third in 60 years. The two previous ones dealt with constitutional reforms. This time it was about a law and everyday life, a first. The opportunity was therefore real to criticize the government, in a country where freedoms are under control, where the press is censored, and where basic necessities are lacking, partly because of the American embargo: little food, few drugs. There are therefore many possible interpretations of this result.