News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics Published by the Swedish Federation for Gay and Lesbian Rights (RFSL) No. 13/94 (March 28th-April 3rd, 1994) 1 Answer by the Royal Academy of Sciences Torvald C Laurent, president of the Royal Adacemy of Sciences, has now responded to the criticism from a number of researchers about the decisions concerning the Amundson Foundation (se News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 2/93, 11/93, 44/93 and 11/94). This was done in the daily Dagens Nyheter on March 31st: "The work of the Royal Academy of Sciences is in the first place directed at mathematics and natural science. There is no reason not to believe that Amundson was well aware of this. When the physician Amundson spoke about studies on the origin and ex- planation of homosexuality and desired the Royal Academy of Science to be the trustee he should have been aware of, or perhaps started out from, that the studies would be in this area. The authors of the articles admit themselves that Amundson's will includes such biological and medical studies that have received grants from the Acadamy this year. The authors of the article also start to discuss in a questionable way the quality of the research that have received grants as well as the competence of the experts of the Academy. Six out of the thirteen authors of the article were applicants who did not receive grants. I can understand their disappointment, but they can hardly state anything objectively in this issue." 2 Editorials on partnership Also this week, some editorials on partnership have been publis- hed: "It is important also in the future that cohabitation relations- hips and partnership are not equal to traditional marriages. They are, for several reasons, different forms of cohabitation and this can be changed neither by the Parliament, nor by homosexual ac- tivists. (Nordv„stra Sk†nes Tidningar, Conservative, April 2nd) "In the heated debate after the statement of the Archbishop it is spoken about 'partnership' (the demand of the movers of the motions) and 'household community' (the demand of the Swedish Church and the non-conformist churches). What the Church primarily wants to avoid is the most far- reaching demands of homosexuals to have the right to some form of marriage in a church setting. The marriage act, they say, is unique as a confirmation of a couple and family formation between man and woman and should be reserved for that. Probably this argument today is in harmony with the public opinion. If one looks back into history, the tolerance has fortunately enough increased both in the church and the rest of the society. It can therefore not be excluded that one day the step will be taken and both 'marriage' and the right of homosexuals to adopt children are seen as something normal. It is important in the current siutation that a legal framework of security, what is called to have 'the necessary documents' for cohabitants of different sexes, also will be valid for homosexual couples." (Sala Allehanda, independent, March 30th) "The household community act would meet the legal needs of the homosexuals, but would not be based on the sexual relation of the parties, which in the legal sense could exist or not exist. It could have been a good compromise, if the homosexuals had thought that it was acceptable, but apparently it did not fall into good ground, since the reactions has been consequently negative. Then it is time to look more tender-heartedly than legally at the needs of the homosexuals. The marriage is in fact not legally connected to sexual relations. There is nothing about sexuality in the Marriage Code and there is a big number of marriages where there is no sexual life. Nor do sexual circumstances have any role in divorces. Considering this, one could consider that a new legislation would not have to be connected to sexuality, but for many homosexuals partnership is apparently the only way of having the relationship recognized. By that it is perhaps as good to give up the compromise. Tenderness of heart towards an exposed group must in the name of love be more important, and in this case it may lead to giving up a proposed law that in itself is good." (Lena L”nnqvist in S„ndaren, Swedish Covenant Church/Swedish Baptist Church, 12/94)