Peru's Civil Union Bill Sparks Internal Party Divisions and Professional Backlash

In Peru's Congress, a modest proposal to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples has opened fault lines within the governing coalition and exposed deep disagreements about what science actually says about human relationships.

Congressman Alejandro Cavero introduced Bill 2803/2022 in November, and the Labor Commission approved it for debate on the full congressional floor. The bill defines civil union as a voluntary arrangement between two people of the same or opposite sex who wish to share a life together. It is deliberately narrow in scope: it grants property and inheritance rights, allows couples to sign contracts governing their shared assets and personal arrangements, and provides for economic compensation if the union dissolves. It also extends medical decision-making authority, social security coverage, prison visitation rights, and survivor benefits. But it explicitly excludes adoption, does not change anyone's legal marital status, and grants no rights over children.

Cavero framed this restraint as intentional. During his presentation to the Justice Commission, he emphasized that civil union is fundamentally a property arrangement, distinct from marriage, and that the final version would be reworded to eliminate any suggestion that it touches on family formation or conception. He wanted no ambiguity.

Yet within his own party, Avanza País, the bill has created confusion and contradiction. Days after the Labor Commission approved it, the party issued a statement saying the proposal was Cavero's personal initiative, not party policy, and that the party prioritized economic reactivation and public safety instead. The statement noted that members were free to act according to conscience, and that the party respected individual liberty. Two days later, the party's congressional bloc reversed course, issuing a statement in support of Cavero's initiative and affirming the right of people to pursue their life projects freely.

When pressed by reporters, Armando Barrantes, the party's national organization secretary, was blunt: the party does not encourage or support civil unions. He argued that if couples wanted to manage property together, a simple civil contract between adults would suffice. Aldo Borrero, the party's general secretary, reiterated that the bill was Cavero's alone, not the organization's, and that the party felt obliged to clarify its institutional position.

But the most damaging controversy has come from outside Congress. The Regional Directorate Council I of Lima of the Peruvian College of Psychologists issued a statement opposing the bill on grounds that would have seemed archaic even a decade ago. The council asserted that humans have developed according to natural conditions established since early homo sapiens—specifically, the union of male and female for reproduction and child-rearing. It argued that healthy human life depends on this natural model, and that child-rearing should follow traditional paternal and maternal roles, with fathers modeling masculinity and mothers modeling femininity. The council concluded that it is an error to suggest that natural matters can be questioned or changed by ideology, law, or fashion.

The statement triggered immediate and sharp rebuttal from Peru's scientific and academic community. The Ethics Committee of the Psychology Faculty at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú called the statement scientifically baseless and harmful to LGBTQI+ people. The Peruvian Psychoanalytic Society condemned it for promoting discrimination and limiting understanding of human complexity. Alex Hernández Muro, a psychologist and researcher at Más Igualdad Perú, called the statement discriminatory pseudoscience. She noted that family structure is a social construct that has evolved over time and now encompasses many forms—same-sex couples, single parents, grandparents raising children, divorced parents. Invoking a supposed natural order, she argued, denies human diversity and reinforces harmful gender stereotypes that damage the mental health of children in same-sex households.

It emerged that the council's dean, Manuel Silva Aguilar, had been sanctioned and permanently separated from the College of Psychologists in 2023, though the council continued to operate under his nominal leadership. The actual dean for the 2021-2024 period is psychologist Angélica Burga.

Jorge Apolaya, spokesman for the Lima Pride March Collective, rejected the psychology council's statement as homophobic and moralistic, lacking scientific evidence. But he also criticized Cavero's bill as insufficient. Even if approved, he said, it would not guarantee the equality that same-sex families deserve. The bill prioritizes property rights over social recognition. According to a 2021 sociodemographic report, approximately 39,000 same-sex families exist in Peru. Apolaya argued that such families need more than patrimonial protection—they need to be recognized as equal members of society. Without that, the bill leaves them in legal limbo.