The House of Representatives approved on Wednesday by 71 votes to 92, the proposed equal marriage law, which was approved by the Senate last week. Thus Uruguay became the second country in Latin America to allow this type of union.
It is granted that in a few days will be enacted into law by the Executive.
During the debate heard very different positions on family composition and the effects that the law may bring to society. The nationalist deputy Gerardo Amarilla expressed negative feedback to the project on the grounds that "undermines marriage and the family" and "disrupts the rights of the child, considering an object."
For his part, Deputy colorado Fernando Amado said in this debate can not mix politics with philosophy. "We are discussing politics, permeated with philosophical aspects", reproached and added: "The discussion is interspersed".
"The symbol of the word marriage is what it costs to deliver (...) The basis of society is the family, but the family prefab. But that which is based on love and love is not homosexual or heterosexual, "he said. The deputy official, Daisy Tourne joined his arguments and said: "I do not admit that the state tell me that marriage is a union between persons of the opposite sex to procreate."
For its part, the government deputy Sebastián Sabini said they will vote "confident and happy" the bill.
"Tomorrow we will be a more just, more equal and more rights for everyone," he said.
He recalled that Article 8 of the Constitution only distinguishes people by their talents and virtues. "Neither gender nor sexuality fall within the talents and virtues," he said. He added that if the sole purpose of marriage was procreation, "we would have to ban marriage for some couples."
"A marriage is the union of two people who love each other. Nothing more, nothing less, "he said.
Meanwhile, Rep. Pablo Iturralde expressed nationalist vote against the proposal on the grounds that the bill modifies the legal framework to heterosexual marriage. "It should have created a framework for regulating gay marriage, but without changing the regulating the heterosexual" he said.
In the same line also said the nationalist Pablo Abdala. He said he was "willing to legislate" about it and that it was necessary, but that the project was flawed.
"We have all warned that the reform of the civil code is riddled with errors," he said.
Meanwhile Pedro Saravia, a member of the National Alliance, said he agreed "with the origin and principles" that led to the project, but for their mistakes and desprolijidades ends up being "a mess". He said the Senate became worse than it was.
"I can not as a lawyer and legislator generate a legal tool to come to correct mistaken with another law within 60 days," he said. He added: "The trouble is not a good counselor when you have to legislate."
He said that the heterosexual and homosexual unions "are unequal" because some can procreate and others not.
"But I will recognize the same rights. There are common bonds: the feelings, the capacity to love children, to educate them. They should have the same rights. Regarding the ability to adopt, I agree: Nobody gave the assurance that a heterosexual couple educate better than a gay couple, "he said.
Ivan Posada, MP for the Independent Party (IP) said that what we vote is "the act of recognizing those rights that are essential to all human beings" and that he would vote in favor.
Also coincided with the view that the law has improprieties and warned: "It is not the first time that the Senate amendments bring wrong remedies."
Meanwhile, Alvaro Delgado said the Senate was "scribbles" to amend the law and this creates difficulties in its implementation, but anyway will vote.
"Among the form and substance, let us bow at the bottom," he said, while confident that within 90 days generate an amended bill to correct the errors to which he referred.
The nationalist also Jaime Trobo, would vote against, calling it "wrong and inappropriate" the law is being discussed.
"The Constituent understands that parents are a man and a woman," he said.
Instead, the Socialist deputy said Maria Elena Laurnaga no natural joints, on the contrary, there are "social and cultural constructions that are endorsed by the law."
"There has to be risk capacity to change some ways. Because the ways to make the contents. You know very well, "he said.
Laurnaga was interrupted by the ruling also Berta Sanseverino. The deputy said that the law was voted by members of the four parliamentary parties creates "an extraordinarily strong legitimacy and a climate of acceptance that allows too marginalized to ultraconservative sectors".
The project called gay marriage was approved on April 2 in the Senate with votes of legislators from the three main parties.
The Observer continues the discussion around Twitter. Read here the most important interventions
The original project grew out of a text written by Black Sheep Collective demands that promotes homosexual groups and taken up by members of the Frente Amplio.
"We are living a historical fact. Today Uruguay pay off your debt with many Uruguayans who still suffer discrimination, "said Federico Graña, one of the leaders of the Black Sheep Collective, told The Associated Press. "Today statewide given dignity to the love between two people of the same sex," he added.
If approved in the House of Representatives the bill should be enacted into law by the government within 10 days after the vote.
"Depending on the necessary procedures, we estimate that the first gay couples will be married 90 days after enactment of the law is, it should be in mid-July," said Grana.
Uruguay will thus become the twelfth country in the world and the second in Latin America after Argentina to allow gay marriage throughout its territory. Besides the marriage between same sex, the bill includes other controversial issues, such as allowing gay couples to adopt children.
The Uruguayan legislation allows same sex couples to legalize their union - although not as marriage - and that they aspire to adopt children.
The text to be voted on Wednesday also involves changes to all-gay marriage or not, as for example in deciding the order of names of parents when naming a child, biological or adopted, or begin the process of divorce decision either spouse, so far only women have that right thanks to a standard 1912.
The Catholic Church urged lawmakers to act "conscientiously" and reject the project and in a statement on the website of the Episcopal Conference of Uruguay said "call equally to unequal realities pretext of equality, non- is inconsistent assimilations justice but will only further weakening marriage. Finding a real difference not discriminate. "
He added that "legislating from abroad following models" without "deepen legal consequences that involve alterations to the set of Uruguayan society on the issue of the family," he adds.
Michelle Suarez, also a member of Black Sheep Collective and participant in the drafting of the original text, told the AP that the new law will also allow foreign gay couples to marry traveling to Uruguay, as already happens with heterosexual couples, "always they meet for regular immigration procedures. "
"This is an issue of freedom of choice of the people and of justice," said Senator Rafael Michelini told The Associated Press at the time of approval in the Senate. "From freedom because the state should not get involved in who to marry one and justice because if you marry abroad with a person of the same sex, if Uruguay then resumes her marriage is recognized," he added.
Uruguayan justice acknowledged for the first time in June a marriage between persons of the same sex to accept request for a Uruguayan and a Spanish previously married in Spain who wanted to formalize their status in the country.
DON’T LIKE THE TRANSLATION? actup.org uses crowdsourced translations. You can help improve any translation. Select “Edit Translation” at top of page.