News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics Published by the Swedish Federation for Gay and Lesbian Rights (RFSL) No. 11/94 (March 14th-20th, 1994) 1 The last day for formal remarks has passed March 15th was the last day to submit formal remarks on the report of the Partnership Commission. 39 out of the 44 bodies asked to submit remarks have done so. Several bodies discuss details in the proposals of the Partner- ship Commission. These remarks can be concluded from a compilation that can be obtained from the RFSL. The following bodies propose approval of a partnership act: Scania and Blekinge Court of Appeal, the National Board of Health and Welfare, the National Institute of Public Health, the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman, the National Tax Board, the Board of the Faculty of Law at the Univeristy of Lund, the Swedish Psy- chologists Association, the Swedish Medical Association, the Swedish Association for Sexual Information, the RFSL, the Ecu- menical Group for Christian Gay Men and Lesbians, the Association of Local Government Family Advisors and the Funeral Society Fonus. The following bodies have no objections against a partnership act: The County Administrative Court of Malm”hus, Statistics Sweden, the Swedish Immigration Board, the Office of the Omudsman against Ethnic Discrimination, the National Judicial Board for Public Lands and Funds, the Swedish Bar Association, the Swedish Judges Association, the Swedish Insurance Association, the Insu- rance Law Association, the Data Inspection Board, the National Social Insurance Board, the Patent and Registration Office. The following bodies do not discuss the partnership act in their remarks, but state that gay men and lesbians should not be able to adopt children: The National Board for Intercountry Adoptions, the Office of the Children's Ombudsman, the Adoption Centre. The following bodies have hesitations about a partnership act: The Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal, the District Court of Stockholm and the District Court of V„xj”. The following bodies propose rejection of a partnership act: the County Administrative Court of Uppsala, the National Courts Administration, the Board of the Faculty of Law at the University of Uppsala, the Archbishop, the Catholic Episcopate, the Central Board of the Church of Sweden, the Cooperation Group of Non-Con- formist Churches/the Christian Board of Sweden, the Association of Jurists at public law-service offices. Besides these a number of so-called spontaneous remarks have been submitted, both positive and negative ones. 2 Editorials about the rejection of the Archbishop The Swedish churches' joint rejection of the proposals of the Partnership Commission have caused debate in the mass media. Parts of some editorials on Archbishop Gunnar Weman's rejection of the partnership are quoted below: "The Swedish Church disagrees with gay and lesbian cohabitants who want to register as marriage partners. The Archbishop should do like the NATO - offer partnership for peace." (Expressen, liberal, March 20th) "Household community! Taste the word. As harmless as the 'Household Cheese'. What will loving people in the future whisper to each other? Well... should we go in for... household community! You and I.' Household community! What a terrible word, so remote from a natural use of language. A person using that word in a probationary sermon will not get the position and thanks God. Marriage shall be marriage and household community shall be hou- sehold community, says the archbishop. But household community shall not only be there for gay men and lesbians. Also sisters, brothers, missionaries and school-mistresses can be in question, said the foremost of the State Church. School-mistresses? Does the archbishop think that today's female teacher lives in some dark attic flat in the school, with a tight hair knot but without her own family, yearning for a household community contract?" "The household community will now become an assembly heat for miscellanous relationships: between cohabiting female teachers, queers, lesbians, missionaries, sisters and brothers, computor consultants, leather bikers and vira players. If now the household community will be like a sort of light mar- riage, I do not think that the missionaries in question will be particularly attracted by that model. Nor the school-mistresses with the tight knots. The impression is that the construction is created for a church with a difficulty to make up its mind, not for the people who are concerned by the partnership." (Peter Swedenmark in the Social Democratic daily L„nstidningen ™stersund, March 16th) "When bishops and other religious leaders make statements in legal issues they have their opinions in the same way as does any other private person. They do not have any particular weight. It is in the religious matters they make their statements with authority, and in that case only for their own adherents. Also in societal questions, belief plays an important role for many chris- tians since it is the basis for their moral values. The church can give direction for these people. But for everybody else, the statement of the church is without interest." (Idag, independent liberal, March 16th) "The Archbishop does not want gay men and lesbians to be able to register their partnership. However, he can tolerate a legislation that regulates the relations between everybody who live together, e.g. sisters, brothers, children, parents and others. The question is whether the archbishop also can accept that a man can register together with several wives. Or, in the name of equality, a wife with several husbands." (™stg”ta Correspondenten, non-socialist, March 16th) "Weman's statement is perhaps not surprising alas sad and regret- table. However, the importance of the remarks of the church should not be over-estimated. The theological remarks are fairly unin- teresting for the future consideration of the issue." "More interesting is, however, the upcoming political considera- tion of the proposals of the Partnership Commission. Behind the proposal are the Liberal, the Social Democratic and the Leftist Parties. What will happen when the reviewing time is passed? In the Government, the Christian Demorats are open 3 (5) opponents to the partnership, but from the Conservative and Centre Parties there have also been reactionary remarks. The Government will therefore not be able to submit a proposal. But the parties that are behind the thought of a partnership can raise the issue in the Parliament - and a decision can be taken already this spring. This is what should be done!" (V„sterbottens-Kuriren, liberal, March 17th) "The argument that the marriage should be open only for hetero- sexuals and also aim at getting children is strange and risky. Should childless relationships not be 'real marriages' according to the church? May not handicapped people, who cannot have children, marry?" "Now the issue is about a partnership for gay men and lesbians, i.e. for boys who love boys and girls who love girls. The aim of the proposals have never been to regulate the cohabitation of fri- ends or sisters or brothers! Wake up, Weman!" (Helle Klein in the Social Democratic daily ™rebro-Kuriren, March 18th) "For a person who knows the least about the meaning of the christian marriage view based on the Bible, the conclusion is so self-evident that it should be unnecessary to waste words on it. Nonetheless it is both possible and probable that the Archbishop will be called a reactionary for having said what is or should be the only thing that is possible to say from an official church position. In their eagerness not to seem old-fashioned and jud- ging, church representatives have now and then shown an extraordi- nary skill in the art of assimilating the religiously inspired va- lues to the correct values on the opinion market. Gunnar Weman was himself vague, when asked about partnership, as a newly appointed Archbishop. He should be honoured for having changed his mind." (Bor†s Tidning, Conservative, March 16th) "This is what should be kept for the Norwegians and the Danes, where homosexual marriages are allowed. We do not have to copy everything that is bad... Homosexuals may live as they like, but if marriage is allowed, the next step will be that they may adopt children too. And such a changed view of the family simply may not be suppor- ted by the country's Archbishop! The retreat is welcome!" (V„sternorrlands Allehanda, Conserva- tive, March 16th) 3 Protests against the Royal Academy of Sciences 13 researchers who work with issues about homosexuality on March 15th published a debate article in the daily Dagens Nyheter concerning Amundson's Foundation (see News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 2/93, 11/93 and 44/93): "Four fifths of the funds that the Academy has allocated has gone to medical and biological research. Amundson's broad definition of how the Foundation should be used surely includes both research about mechanisms of origin and fruit flies. But it is not in these areas but in the fields of social science and humanities that modern homosexuality research is generally conducted. The Royal Academy of Sciences has through its priorities taken a stand for a very narrow and antiquated view on what homosexuality research is and how it should be conducted. In addition, the Adacemy has apparently deliberately abstained from giving grants to any of the more established researchers in Sweden who work with issues about homosexuality. It seems to be a merit never having worked with any research in this area. The considerations of the Royal Academy of Sciences of the Amundson's Foundation can only be said to be an insult not only to the serious homosexuality research but also to Torsten Amundson and his relatives, who for many years have tried to get Amundson's last will respected. The issue has already been paid attention to internationally and have ridiculed the Swedish research community. Since it seems apparent that the Academy still does not want to use the money for the aims Amundson wanted, it should do what it should have done already 1941 and which the will gives possibility to: give up the money or transfer the consideration to another - broad-minded scientific institution." 4 Labour market discrimination in the Parliament The Parliament decided on March 17th to reject the motions, which urged that discrimination against gay men and lesbians in the labour market should be banned (see News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 7/94 and 8/94). 5 50 years since homosexuality was decriminalized On March 15th the RFSL arranged a press seminar because of the 50 years' anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality. It was on March 15th, 1944 that the Second Chamber of the Parliament abolished the law that enacted labour punishment for voluntary relations between two men or two women. 6 Motion on accommodation allowances Margareta Winberg, Social Democratic MP, has now submitted a motion urging that also gay and lesbian couples should be able to receive accommodation allowances. The issue about the right of gay and lesbian couples to receive joint accommodation allowances has been considered by the Parliament several times (see News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 2/93, 5/93, 9/93, 14/93, 15/93, 17/93 and 8/94). The Government has not, despite urges from the Parliament, submitted any bill on removal of the discrimination of gay men and lesbians concerning the accommodation allowances. So writes Winberg: "The Parliament made its decision in the beginning of June 1993. More than eight months later - in February 1994 - the Parliament receives a bill on accommodation allowances for the year of 1995. In this bill it is not mentioned with one word the demand made by the Parliament in 1993 about a bill on a widening of the categori- es that may receive accommodation allowances. It is natural that the Governbment in the bill in question had presented a proposal on changes of the Accommodation Allowances Act in order to meet the request of the Parliament. This action of the Government cannot be excused. Ignoring the Parliament's request in silence indicates an indifference towards those who would have been able to receive accommodation allowances had the law changed in accordance with the Parliament's decision. We cannot accept an excuses that the preparation work is not concluded. The fact that the Standing Committee and the Parliament did not see that there were sufficient reasons to await the work of the Partnership Commission was exactly an expression for a wish that the Government quickly would present a bill on a widening of the categories that may receive accommodation allowances." 7 RFSL's National Congress The National Congress of the RFSL was held on March 18th-20th in Trollh„ttan. Besides election of Central Board and consideration of annual economical reports and budget etc. the Congress decided to work for a deletion of the term christian ethics in the school palans and to produce a white book on the Christian Democrats' view on homosexuality.