Universality will set us free. The principle of universality derives from the condition of the entire human race and, on the basis of the dignity of all human beings, recognizes everyone, without any distinction, equal access to all human rights without exception of scope, from legal, social or private. It wasn’t always like that, but sometimes we go back. I explain.

The freedom to marry, for example, was conditioned by the will of the parents of the contracting parties, as it was understood that the marriage contract was basically an act of lineage, so to speak, and in turn, an act of preserving the family heritage through procreation. And if we look back, we will remember the pre-Christian marriage in which the woman was an object of rejection subject to the will of the husband; and following the line of anthropology professor Higinio Marín, who recognized with a certain irony in Moses the goodness of reducing the scope of renunciation to adultery and infertility, Christianity abandons this demand for the permanence of marriage on the behavior and condition of the woman only in the Gospels, either because Jesus explains that in the beginning humanity was not like that or because of the behavior of St. Joseph who decided to get married without any sexual relationship.

The women’s collective submits a subjective appeal before the Court for Electoral Disputes to respect gender equality

Despite the clarification, we retreated and the Church became powerful enough to dethrone women from the throne of equality and identify them as the face of the devil’s temptation, robbing the true spirit of Christianity.

The conviction of Germán Cáceres does not close the wound

Then the story goes that the Catholic Queen Elizabeth herself, in 1503, ordered her governors in the New World to promote marriages of different races, i.e. between colonists and Indians, because the Indians, said the queen, were free and these recognized links could contribute to evangelization on the continent. Then King Ferdinand legalizes that permit. And so the pendulum swings between freedom and restriction.

We hope that this new breed of leaders will not give up and realize that peace is not a gift.

I gave examples of intimate decisions. Now I move on to public decisions like politics and from there I feel amazed and embarrassed by the violence with which they attack characters who have decided to open up to their old political friends because of their convictions. Open because they do not like to be subjected to criminal acts such as blackmail and extortion, because they are not organic, because they have used their freedom to choose with whom they will share their social and political ideals.

Society is changing rapidly and the pendulum we talked about moves at a different pace and with other proposals, and that’s okay, we can’t oppose the dynamics of evolution. But that’s evolution, right? Aren’t we experiencing moments of regression by normalizing violence against those who oppose our ideas?

I hope that this new political generation will remain steadfast in its respect for human freedom, the dignity of all. I hope that schools, colleges and universities will promote subjects that develop the skills to live together in freedom and respect. Let us hope that this new breed of leaders will not come back and realize that peace is not a gift, but a conquest achieved by the greats of history. I hope they want to be great politicians in Ecuador. (OR)