Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 01:13 GMT+0200 From: Lewis Taylor <LT@fek.su.se> News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics Published by the Swedish Federation for Gay and Lesbian Rights (RFSL), P.O.Box 350, S-101 26 STOCKHOLM, Sweden. Telephone +46-8-736 02 13. Fax +46-8-30 47 30. No. 3/94 (January 17th-23rd, 1994) 1 The motions are arriving The general motion period for the Swedish Parliament is between January 10th and 25th. During that period all MPs may submit motions on any subject. Here are descriptions of the motions about homosexuality that were submitted up to January 23rd. Maj-Lis Loeoew, MP, has submitted the official Social Democratic partnership motion: "The Social Democrats have in the Parliament during several years worked for a partnership act. The majority of the Parliament has referred to the work of the Partnership Commission, which is now concluded. The normal procedure should now be to await review circulation and a bill. However, it is apparent that the current Government will not submit a bill in this issue. The representatives of three coalition parties have registered their dissent against such a law. However, in the Parliament there should exist a majority in favour of a partnership act. "We therefore maintain that the Parliament on its own initiative should introduce a partnership legislation in order to avoid further delay in an issue that is important to many. The goal should be to make a decision already during the spring session, which should be possible, even if the views express in the on- going review circulation are to be taken into consideration." Margareta Winberg, Social Democratic MP, has submitted a motion urging that the Partnership Act immediately be introduced. She has signed the motion together with the fellow Social Democrats Berit Andnor, Lena Klevenaas, Ulrica Messing, Martin Nilsson, Ulla Pettersson, Maj Britt Theorin and Ines Uusman: "Negative discrimination against gay men and lesbians is incompatible with a democratic constitution. Not the least with regard to the long time that the country's gay men and lesbians have had to wait for legal equality, this should now be realized by a decision by the Parliament. Denmark and Norway has already gone before us. Sweden should not be late in following the two Nordic neighbouring countries. "The majority proposal of the Partnership Commission does not in any regard violate Christian values. Some few passages in the Old Testament express a negative view of homosexuality. This is done in chapters that treat profane laws in non-Christian societies in pre-Christian times. They appear in parallel with demands that faithless wives are to be stoned and that peoples defeated in wars are to be made slaves. This has certainly not any validity in the perspective of the Gospels. Some statements against homosexuality in the letters of St Paul must be seen as expressions of purely profane notions that occurred in a particular social environment 2,000 years ago. The crucial point is that Christ nowhere in the Gospels mentions the issue of heterosexuality or homosexuality. "Nothing implies that it has been of any importance whatsoever in his message. From a Christian point of view one is thus obliged to resort to the message of love and the general spirit of the Gospels - and these do not form a basis for socially or legally discriminating against gay men and lesbians in today's society." The movers of the motions have included four proposed laws in the text of the motion and ask that these be adopted. The four proposed laws have earlier been proposed by the Partnership Commission (see News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 39/93): Partnership Act, Unisexual Cohabitation Act, Act on Amendment of the Marriage Code and Act on Amendment of the Penal Code. The Centre Party MPs Christina Linderholm, Lennart Dale'us and Paer Granstedt have submitted a motion that the Partnership Act immediately be introduced: "The equal rights of all people and everybody's equality before the law belong to the fundamental principles of a democratic society. It is also the task of the legislator to see to that nobody is discriminated against because of his sexual orientation. "Many important and good changes for gay men and lesbians have taken place during the last decades. Issues about gay men and lesbians are discussed in the Parliament, by mass media and in the public. The public attitude towards gay men and lesbians and towards gay and lesbian cohabitation have become more tolerant and understanding. "The Homosexual Cohabitation Act was a step on the path to recognizing the gay and lesbian cohabitation, but did not remove all the differences between cohabitants of different sexes and gay and lesbian cohabitants. Still some directly discriminatory regulations for gay men and lesbians remain in law, regulations and collective agreements. "During a number of years, demands have been put forward, e.g. through motions from several of the parties, that a Partnership Act be introduced. The primary reason is evidently the practical order in not having to introduce special solutions in the legisla- tion. Many issues would then be solved, e.g. inheritance. It also gives gay and lesbian couples the possibility to choose cohabitation form, living in a couple, cohabitation or partnership, and grants them the same legal regulations as heterosexual couples. "Another reason for partnership is symbolic. Such a decision would mean that gay men and lesbians almost fully will be accepted by the state, which would be important towards the public and possibly contribute to reducing prejudice in the long run." The movers of the motion ask that the legislation proposed by the Partnership Commission be introduced by the parliament. Knut Wachtmeister and Bo Arvidsson, conservative: "We agree with the dissentients' (Conservative Party, Centre Party, Christian Democratic Party and New Democracy Party) disassociation from a new marriage-like law for homosexuals. The dissentients think that the majority one-sidedly has concentrated on the situation of homosexuals and instead want the household community principle to be widened to also including systems and others that live together and are dependent on each other without being homosexual. Improvements should also be investigated that would bring security to those people especially concerning unex- pected incidents such as death. "We think that it is particularly ridiculous to even consider the possibility of adoption. In the introduction chapter of the Commission Report it was said that society should facilitate for people to live in accordance with their wishes, provided this does not hurt others. "We have the firm opinion that children adopted by two homosexual men run an evident risk of being mentally damaged." Bengt Harding Olson, Liberal MP, has submitted a motion about the "compromise" to the partnership reform about which he has written articles previously (see News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 25/93, 26/93, 28/93, 35/93, 41/93, 42/93). Instead of a partnership act Olson wants "the legal protection to increase in phase with the time that the cohabitation has lasted. Another model is to change the legislation in steps. One first step could thus be to introduce the right to registration of the partnership in the current cohabitation acts. Besides, this step can be taken already now and without awaiting the Govern- ment's consideration of the report from the Partnership Commission. As the next step one can equalize the legal consequences in the economic field, e.g. through common possession regulations, legal acts between the parties, mutual maintenance and mutual right to inheritage. In addition can be mentioned equality in the social security system and in tax regulations. In a future step - in the case of one or both parties bringing children into the partnership - the other party's 'parental duties' can be clarified. In the final step an economical and legal equality - with some inevitable exceptions - can be perceived as logical by the broad public." Olson states that the reason why his proposal should be accepted is that the partnership reform "meets great opposition from several directions" and that "the continuing legal development should be in reasonable harmony with the public sense of justice. This means that the method of partial improvements should be used." He asks that the Parliament express its support for "modernization of the Homosexual Cohabitation Act". Furthermore Olson says: "In 1973, the Parliament adopted the so- called neutrality ideology which means that the society should be neutral in relation to the different cohabitation forms." He requests a review of the family law. "At the same time it should be considered whether the basic principle should be complemented with an exception rule meaning that different treatment is accepted if there are particular reasons." Chatrine Paalsson, Christian Democrat: "Man's need for community and care is undoubtedly one of the most basic needs for her to feel security and being able to develop. Through this security man grows personally and dares to take steps in order to meet challenges in the society and the environment. "This security is firstly built up in the family and is then developed through the life in forms of group formations and communities. The most common way of manifesting this security and love is through the marriage. The marriage has over the times had a special position as a community formation. Even in the future, marriage will have the primary position as a constellation since marriage offers security for the children. For this reason, marriage is sanctioned by the state through laws and regulations. "A consequence of a dynamic and changeable society is, however, that people's ways of finding security vary. Some do not find marriage suitable and choose other constellations in order to obtain security, e.g. cohabitation relationships. In a democracy, people should have the right to choose the cohabitation form they find suitable. "However, the degree of legal security that the society offers is limited. Marriage includes a big number of laws, e.g. possession order, mutual maintenance, mutual right to inheritage and the possibility to acquire the other partner's surname. For married couples the rules are different also when it comes to pension forms, life insurances, parental benefits. "Therefore there may be a need for compensation, e.g. in the form of a voluntary agreement. It is today unknown how the different household communities are formed and therefore impossible to establish the need. People who share household communities lack the possibility of working for their wishes through organizations, partly because of the different structures in the household communities. "Therefore there is reason to review some of the regulations, primarily on the social security area, for people that share household communities on other grounds than that of the marriage. "All types of permanent cohabitation should be included in a review. It should include both the social legislation and the categories of beneficiaries in insurances. "In this context it is regrettable that the majority of the Partnership Commission has not wanted to illuminate the situation for other household communities than that of homosexuals." Chatrine Paalsson asks the Parliament to require "a review of laws and regulations that concern household communities and the need for better protection for this group". Ingvar Svensson and Pontus Wiklund, Christian Democrats: "To judge from the majority of the Partnership Commission the main reason for introducing a Partnership Act for homosexuals is to gain acceptance for the group. However, it is extremely doubtful whether this motive can be met with this proposal. "The traditional marriage has through the centuries been given normative overtones. These normative overtones cannot be moved here and there just because similar legal 'houses' are built according to different wishes for legal cohabitation regulation. I other words: just because new cohabitation laws are created, there will be no automatic spin-off effects of social acceptance. "The legal problems that may appear can in fact be solved in other ways. Nor do we believe that a special legislation only for homosexual cohabitants is appropriate. The group has succeeded well in being heard in the public debate. However, in the future, other groups will perhaps want to have their relationships regulated in special laws. It would in the long run create a peculiar legal situation." "It is said that voluntary agreements today cannot cover the needs that e.g. groups of homosexuals have in a legal sense. It could be e.g. beneficiary's rights in some contexts. This perspective makes it necessary that the legislator removes the obstacles for making such agreements. A review should be done in order to create a free 'market of agreements' for those who do not want to accept or cannot enter into a marriage." The movers of the motion ask the Parliament to require "a review in order to remove the obstacles for different household communities in entering into sufficient voluntary agreements in the cohabitation area". 2 The Social Insurance Office continues discrimination Lennart Axelsson, head of department at the Social Insurance Office in the Stockholm County, has stated that it was a erroneous decision to give a lesbian cohabitant temporary parental benefit (see News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 2/94). However, Yvonne Stroeberg, head of the Social Insurance Office at Bjoerkhagen, has said to mass media that she stands by her decision. 3 Pyrrhic victory for lesbian parents A working group within the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs has now proposed that the regulations about temporary parental benefits be changed. The working group proposes that a gay or lesbian cohabitant with a child may transfer the right to stay at home to take care of a sick child to the cohabitant. However, the working group maintains that gay and lesbian cohabitants are by definition "single". According to the current regulations, a parent may transfer the right to stay at home to take care of a child to the cohabitant. This is true even if the cohabitant is not herself a parent of the child, but only if the cohabitant is of the opposite sex (see News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics 8/93 and 9/93). The RFSL has for a long time demanded that the regulations be changed, so that a parent can transfer the right to stay home for care of a sick child to a cohabitant of the same sex. The Working Group for Review of Certain Issues within the Parental Insurance now proposes that the regulations be changed so that "singles" may transfer their right to temporary parental benefit to a close friend. In practice it means that a gay or lesbian parent may transfer the right to stay home to take care of a sick child to the cohabitant. But if the proposal of the working group would be adopted, it would mean that the Swedish Parliament as late as 1994 establishes that gay and lesbian cohabitants are "singles". 4 "Rebellion" against partnership The Christian daily Dagen on January 19th stated that 90,000 people stand behind a "rebellion" against partnership. A petition was handed over to the Standing Committee on Civil-Law Legislation on January 17th. From the article can be concluded that only 8,144 people have signed the petition. The other 79,568 people have not signed the petition but are members of congregations that have supported the petition. The petition of the RFSL has so far resulted in approximately 15,000 signatures. The periodic publications of RFSL Kom Ut (in Swedish): 6 issues a year. Subscription 150 SEK a year. Fakta fraan 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.