The Cuban referendum on Family Law and its broader social debate
The electoral process began with polling stations opening at 7:00 am local time on the island, marking the start of a nationwide referendum on a new Family Code. The package would ratify same-sex marriage, surrogacy, and adoption by same-sex couples, while facing organized opposition from sections of society, including the Episcopal Conference.
According to Cuban media, President Miguel Díaz-Canel and his wife, Lis Cuesta, voted at 7:48 am local time in School 3 of District 57 in the Playa municipality of Havana. Díaz-Canel used his official Twitter account to express that this day would bring a future shaped by the Code Yes, signaling that the moment could alter family law in Cuba. He invited citizens to participate at the ballot boxes with the hashtag #CodigoYes, noting that a significant change would arrive on this day.
The president explained that the Code was born from public discussion and reflects a social need. He noted that Cuban society has become more diverse in recent years, with families evolving and new types of relationships appearing. From draft norms to concrete issues, he observed that a range of treaties and historical legacies had accumulated. Díaz-Canel contended that it is fair for these changes to be considered at a moment like this, framing the referendum as a substantial opportunity for legal recognition of contemporary family structures. While he did not insist on unanimity, he suggested that a clear majority was likely among the Cuban people.
The ratification campaign for the Family Code quickly became a central priority for the ruling faction led by Díaz-Canel. Social media activity intensified in support of the project under the slogan “The code is yes,” with supporters treating the referendum as a national milestone and even commemorating the day as a holiday in Cuba.
Voting abroad had a head start. Even as the referendum unfolded on the island, more than 22,000 Cubans outside the country, including diplomats and others present for official duties, had already cast their ballots, according to official figures. The focus then turned to how the domestically driven vote would unfold and what turnout would look like, given the international participation described by state media.
Church as a key opponent
The Church in Cuba emerged as one of the most vocal opponents to the modernization of Family Law. Church leaders challenged certain interpretations and drew on statements attributed to prominent Cuban figures in the past. They argued that love between a man and a woman is natural and aligned with the original plan of the Creator, asserting that legal reforms could not distort this relationship. In mid-September, Cuban bishops released a proclamation that warned against what they viewed as potential gender ideology and its possible effects on families, including concerns about minors asserting gender identity.
On the matter of adoption by same-sex couples, the Church maintained that it conflicts with the notion that a child inherently belongs with a mother and father. They argued that every child should be in a family structure that reflects this traditional understanding and expressed concerns about surrogacy, stating that it is not ethical.
Despite these concerns, the bishops also recognized positive elements within the reform. They acknowledged steps toward reducing domestic violence, protecting rights, and supporting vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with disabilities. They praised efforts aimed at safeguarding the welfare of children and pregnant women, highlighting areas where the Code could improve protections for families across the country.
Opposition voices and public debate
From the Church’s position, critics argued that a sizable portion of Cuban society held legitimate principles, informed by human biology and established traditions. They urged citizens to vote with care, emphasizing the long-term impact on future generations and the continuity of cultural and religious beliefs. The Cuban Episcopal Conference urged people to vote conscientiously, invoking a sense of duty to the present and future generations and asking for intercession to guide residents toward wise choices.
Other public figures weighed in with varied perspectives. Some artists and cultural voices questioned the scope of the referendum, arguing that the government had placed broader issues under a vote while pursuing different policy directions elsewhere on the island. A leading political figure who opposed the reform described the vote as part of an institutional maneuver, criticizing the process as politically manipulative rather than a genuine expression of public consent.
The referendum thus framed a broader conversation about what family life should look like in Cuba, reflecting a spectrum of beliefs about gender, parentage, and the rights of same-sex couples. As citizens participated in the process, many weighed the practical implications for families, the protection of children, and the role of religious institutions in civic life. The day itself became a focal point for the ongoing negotiation between tradition and reform in Cuban society, with observers noting the tensions that often accompany major legal changes.