News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics Published by the Swedish Federation for Gay and Lesbian Rights (RFSL) No. 17/94 (April 25th-May 1st, 1994) 1 New draft legislation On April 28th, the Standing Committee on Civil-Law Legislation decided to submit draft legislation to the Council on Legislation. The draft Act differs from the proposal of the Partnership Commision in some aspects: * The Act is proposed to come into force on January 1st, 1995. The Partnership Commision did not have any proposal in this regard. However, the Liberal Party had proposed in its motion that the law should come into force on July 1st, 1994 (see News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 4/94). * The new legal institute is proposed to be called "registered partnership" instead of "partnership" (the naming of the Partnership Commission). * Some sections are changed in comparison with the proposal of the Partnership Commisson. There is also a new dividing of the chapters. In enclosure 1 the proposed law is reproduced. The Standing Committee on Civil-Law Legislation hopes that the Council on Legislation will present its views before May 10th. 2 Editorials about the new draft legislation "'Registered partnership' - how can anybody eaglery long for something that sounds so deterrent and bureaucratic? Say isntead 'gay and lesbian marriage' and everybody will under- stand what it is all about. But this is not done - the taboos around homosexuality are still too strong. This is at least what the MP's believe - i.e. the MP's from the Social Democratic, Liberal and Leftist Parties who now try to make the Parliament introduce a Registered Partnership Act. They meet many objections: about homosexuality as such, about marriage as such. Many people also point to the fact that the current legislation make it possible for cohabitants to have a joint economy, divide the property and bequeath to each other. But however administratively dull 'registered partnership' sounds, it is not the maintenance that is important. It has to do with love, human dignity and social recognition. The minority that finds its happiness in fidelity and community with a person of the same sex also has the right to have a public approval of their life. The issue that the Parliament has to consider this spring is wheter it wants to give this minority that right. All arguments about elaborating laws on 'household ommunity' or about adding something in the cohabitation legislation only aims at delaying that decision." (Expressen, Liberal, April 29th) "The opponents claim for example that a registered partnership will have 'far-reaching consequences' but do not say what consequences they mean. The most far-reaching is of course that also a relationship between two people of the same sex will be surrounded by the same regulations as a relationship between two people of different sexes. This has to do e.g. with mutual maintenance liability, mutual right to succession and division of joint property. Why should two people who want to establish that they belong to each other be denied this security, only for the reason that they have the same sex? In fact, the partnership does not require sex or joint household." (Gefle Dagblad, Liberal, April 30th) 3 Bengt Harding Olson writes a new article Bengt Harding Olson, MP, who is guiding for those in the Liberal Party, who are against partnership or hesitant, writes in a debate article in the dailies Dagens Nyheter (April 27th), Dagen (April 27th), Sk”vde Nyheter (April 26th) and Sm†landstidningen (May 3rd): "The issue on the homosexual cohabitation is apparently very emotional. Therefore it is natural to have a free voting in the Parliament. But a truly free voting requires that the proposal from the Standing Committee is presented with clear alternatives in three separate steps. Thus as step 1: yes or no to a Partnership Act. As step 2 (if no in the first step): yes or no to a modernized Cohabitation Act and as step 3 (regardless of yes or no in step 1 and 2): yes or no to a Household Community Act. Such an order gives every MP the possibility to clearly choose the alternative that he or she believes is most in harmony with his own conviction. If that will not be the case, many MP's will feel forced to choose the yellow button in order to abstain in the Parliamentary voting. The most obvious solution of the issue about the legal regu- lation of the homosexual cohabitation is to modernize the current Cohabitation Act and - if desired - investigate the issue about a Household Community Act for a later introduction. This solution should be accepted by both sides, at least facing the apparent risk that the opposing side will win. This is according to the principle: better a reasonable compromise than a complete failure for one's own position. Both the material issue and democracy should benefit from such a result." When Bengt Harding Olson speaks about "modernized cohabitation act" he means the proposal that he himslef has advocated in his motion and in a number of earlier debate articles (see News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 25/93, 26/93, 28/93, 35/93, 41/93, 42/93 and 3/94). Fredrik Malmberg, chairperson of the Youth Organization of the Liberal Party commented in a press release the same day: "Bengt Harding Olson, MP, is unprincipled. In a debate article today in Dagens Nyheter he demands a 'compromise' in the partnership issue. Harding Olson wants to abandon the decision of the Liberal Party Congress and the proposal on Partnership that a majority in the Partnerhsip Commission has supported, with the only explanation that he is uncertain on how the voting in the Parliament will turn out! This way of acting is unprincipled. State your opinion, Olson! If you are against partnership, admit it! If you are in favour of partnership, accept the fight, stand for your view and try to achieve a majority in the Parliament. Besides, this is a majority that is probable considering that the Liberal, the Social Democratic and the Leftist Parties and a number of MP's from the Conservative and Centre Parties will vote in favour of the Parntership. In the choice between giving gay men and lesbians the same rights as heterosexuals there are no maybe- options. Now we have to choose yes or no." 4 The former party secretary of the kds on partnership Lars Lind‚n, formerly Party Secretary of the Christian Democratic Party (kds), has written articles on partnership in the dailies Sundsvalls Tidning (April 23rd) and Dagbladet (April 27th): "The gist of this legislation seems to be that the public authorities are to be the spear-head in the moulding of opinion for the homosexual life-style. The RFSL and others are therefore enormously eager to introduce this Partnership Act. The next step will be that the homosexuals will demand a right to adopt children and to have the right to insemination. This has on several occasions been stated by the homosexuals. The possibilities to come into the schools and agitate for the homosxual life-style does not then seem too be far away. Most parents shudder at such a development. I is frightening that our children, during periods when the sex identity is weak, are to be influenced to believe that it does not matter which life-style they choose. Of course, the schools shall inform that certain people are or have become homosxual and that these have the same human value as everybody else. But carrying on and more or less recruit people to this life-style is an unfortunate development." 5 The kds does not want Household Community!? Ingvar Svensson, MP, who in the periodical Kristdemokraten is introducesd as "one of the leading ideologists of the Christian Democrats" stated in No. 17/94 of the periodical: "It is a pointless household community that the Archbishop and the non-conformist churches propose, as an alternative to registered partnership." "- It is not the view of the party that we should have a Hou- sehold Community Act. Our demand is very clear. We are to do away with the obstacles for entering into voluntary agreements." "- The Partnership Commission got the assignment to investigate the issue on Household Commu8nity. If that had been done, it would have done away with the myth that that is an alternative, says Ingvar Svensson. Previously, the Parliament has been able to reject motions on a Parntership Act with reference to the fact that the Commission had not been ready. Now the report is there and the last day for formal remarks has passed. The demand that the issue on Household Community is to be in- vestigated gives the Parliament the possibility to yet another time postpone the decision in the partnership issue." The periodic publications of RFSL Kom Ut (in Swedish): 6 issues a year. Subscription 150 SEK a year. Fakta fr†n RFSL (in Swedish): Approximately ten fact sheets that are updated regularly. Subscription 200 SEK per ten mailings. News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics (in Swedish and English): 52 issues a year. Subscription 180 SEK a year or 30 international reply coupons. Hivbladet (in Swedish): 12 issues a year. Free of charge. Membership in the RFSL: 160-250 SEK a year, depending on which local branch is chosen. Includes subscription of Kom Ut. -- Tobias Wikstr”m RFSL, Box 350, S-101 26 Stockholm, Sweden Telephone +46-8-7360213 Telefax +46-8-304730