Marriage in Finland is currently defined as a union between one man and
one woman. It is seen as an institution that propagates the values of
society through the upbringing of children. Therefore it is closely tied
with the notion of family and is sometimes even considered the building
block of society, a kind of society in microcosm. Though marriage is
basically a legal contract, it is generally thought to be more about love
and commitment.
Marriage is legally defined under Finnish law in the Marriage Act dating
from 1929. In the spring of 2010, a proposal was made by MP Oras Tynkkynen
to change the legal definition of marriage to one that is gender-neutral.
Marriage would no longer be just a union between one man and one woman:
marriages between two women or two men would also be allowed. As the
legislation currently stands, same-sex couples may enter into a registered
partnership; however, this does not afford them the same rights as married
couples have. The main difference is that married couples have full
adoption rights, whereas same-sex couples may only adopt from within the
existing families of the two partners.
Could same-sex marriage become a Finnish institution alongside opposite-
sex marriage? What are opinions for and against the proposed law change?
Where does public opinion stand? What is the position of the church in the
debate, since marriage is traditionally associated with the church? How do
same-sex couples themselves feel? As same-sex marriage is an issue of gay
rights, this paper will also include a brief historical overview of the
advancement of gay rights in Finland.
The Current Situation Regarding Same-sex Marriage in Finland
Same-sex marriage has been discussed with varying intensity since the
late 1990s, but got a new boost in the spring of 2010 when Member of
Parliament Oras Tynkkynen submitted a draft of a proposed bill to make
marriage gender-neutral. After much discussion in the national media,
Minister of Justice Tuija Brax announced in July that the Ministry of
Justice would begin examining the possibility and legal implications of a
gender-neutral matrimony law in the autumn of 2010. She observed that the
Finnish Constitution does not allow discrimination based on gender, and
that it is essential that everyone be treated equally before the law (
Gender-Neutral).
In October 2010 YLE, The Finnish Broadcasting Company, televised a
panel discussion on gender-neutral marriage and the rights of homosexuals
in general. Participating on the panel were several Members of Parliament,
church representatives, public gay figures and several other people who
felt very strongly for or against the issue. This so-called “Gay Night”
brought a huge upsurge in public discussion on the issue. Numerous news
articles considered the views expressed in the discussion and attracted
copious comments from readers. For instance, on the 19th of October the
Finnish newspaper Aamulehti1
reported that their news articles regarding gay issues in the
aftermath of the Gay Night had received more online comments than any of
their articles ever (Homokeskustelu). Furthermore, the programme’s
official internet discussion board “A-tuubi” hosted a great deal of
discussion and numerous blog posts subsequently continued the debate.
Additionally, approximately 30,000 people resigned from the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of Finland in the week following the broadcast. The
average number for a normal week is about 1000 people (Skandaali:).
The sudden influx of people leaving the Church has been attributed to the
negative religious views about homosexuality voiced in the programme. In
contrast to the number of resignations from the Church, the Christian
Democratic party, whose head, MP Päivi Räsänen, made some controversial
comments about homosexuality from her religious viewpoint, received in a
week approximately 400 member applications instead of the usual few (
Kristilllisdemokraatit). The amount of public discussion and the
extremities of the responses to the show indicate that the issue of gay
rights and in particular the question of same-sex marriage is something
Finns feel strongly about.
According to a poll conducted by YLE in August of 2010, 54% of Finns
are for a gender-neutral marriage law and 35% are against. Though much of
the resistance to the law has come from religious circles, the proposed
law change also has a slim majority support among Finns belonging to the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (Yli). The Finnish welfare
state is based on egalitarianism; as such, equality is a strong value for
Finns. However, including sexual minorities in that equality has been a
slow and gradual process. In 1996 only 44% would have accepted gay
marriage (Kyyrönen 57). The trend towards more acceptance is likely to
continue precisely because of the underlying principle of equality that
Finns hold very dear.
In March of 2010 a questionnaire was sent to Members of Parliament to
determine their stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. Out of the 200
members, 126 replied with 54% of MPs against and 46% for a gender-neutral
marriage law (Homoliitot). The result is not entirely reliable
since 74 members failed to answer. That in itself could be considered an
indication of how sensitive the issue is. In the event that the proposed
change would be put to a vote, the outcome might also depend on whether
the MPs would be expected to vote with their party or not, since four of
the five major parties support amending the current legislation (
Gender-Neutral). Prime Minister Mari Kiviniemi has announced that the
proposed law change will not be considered during her term in office (
Sukupuolineutraalia). However, the next parliamentary elections will
be held in April of 2011. The proposed gender-neutral marriage is expected
to be an issue in the elections; depending on the outcome, the proposal
may be added to the government programme once the new government is
formed.
The History of Gay Rights in Finland
Compared to the rest of the Western world, Finland has been moderately
progressive in improving the rights of homosexuals. However, in a Nordic
context, Finland has consistently been slower to make the necessary legal
changes to improve the status of homosexuals than for instance the Swedes,
Danes or Norwegians (Mustola 32). The trend continues to this day.
Homosexuals in Finland have more rights than in many other countries, yet
compared to Iceland, Norway and Sweden, where same-sex couples have the
right to marry, Finland is still lagging behind when it comes to equality.
Homosexuality was illegal in Finland until 1971, when it was finally
decriminalised with the reasoning that criminal law was not the right way
to regulate sexual behaviour between consenting adults (Mustola 19).
However, in the same legislation the age of consent was specified as
higher for homosexual than heterosexual sex (18 vs. 16). In addition,
public encouragement to “lewdness” with another person of the same sex was
made a punishable offence. It took until 1999 to reform the criminal law
and to remove these two discriminatory sections (Mustola 31).
From 2000 to 2004 several new legal improvements were made to LGBT2 rights in Finland. The
new Finnish Constitution emphasised equality, stating in chapter 2,
section 6 that: “No one shall, without an acceptable reason, be treated
differently from other persons on the ground of sex, age, origin,
language, religion, conviction, opinion, health, disability or other
reason that concerns his or her person” (Constitution). The new
labour law that came into effect in 2001 specified that discrimination
based on sexual orientation was illegal. The Non-Discrimination Act of
2004 further broadened the discrimination protection of sexual minorities
(Mustola 36).
Perhaps the most major change was the 2001 passing of a bill that
allowed same-sex couples to enter into a registered partnership. The vote
was very tight, with 99 Members of Parliament voting for the measure and
84 members against (Parliament). This was a significant step
forward, even if the passed bill granted same-sex couples only some of the
rights opposite-sex couples have through marriage.
The most significant shortcoming of the Act of Registered Partnerships
is the unequal adoption rights compared to marriage. In the original
version of the Act, same-sex couples had no adoption rights at all; they
could not even adopt their partner’s children. This inequality was partly
corrected in 2009 when the Act was amended to include adoption from within
a family. This meant that the non-biological parent in a rainbow family3 could become a legal
guardian to the biological children of his/her partner. This still left
same-sex couples with fewer rights than married heterosexual couples had.
Unlike married couples, same-sex couples cannot legally adopt children who
are orphaned or living in an institution. Same-sex couples in a registered
partnership cannot adopt a child unless one of them is the child's
biological parent.
The reason the inequality in adoption rights between homosexual and
heterosexual couples is such a significant issue is because same-sex
couples have far more limited ways of reproducing than heterosexual
couples. Many same-sex couples want to have a family of their own, but
this is made difficult by current legal limitations to adoption.
Artificial insemination is a possibility for female couples, but male
couples would have to find someone willing to carry their child, which
could be difficult since using a surrogate mother is illegal in Finland.
In practise male and female same-sex couples may make unofficial
arrangements with each other regarding insemination and surrogate
motherhood. Prior to 2007 when female same-sex couples could not receive
fertility treatment, their only option was to make private agreements for
donor sperm, often with other members of the gay community. However, these
kinds of arrangements cannot always be made, and lack a proper legal
framework that would determine the rights and responsibilities of all
participating individuals.
Adoption rights are felt to be such an important issue precisely
because adoption has far more importance in the building of rainbow
families than it does for heterosexual families. This is also why the
current discussion over marriage is not just about matrimony but also
about family, and whether people should have the equal right to start one
regardless of their sexuality.
Opinions For and Against Same-sex Marriage in the 2010 Public
Debates
The issue of gay rights and more specifically of the gender-neutral
marriage proposal has created a great amount of public discussion.
Newspapers and television seem to have framed the issue in terms of two
opposing sides: on one side are homosexuals and their advocate groups. On
the other side are religious conservatives and conservative politicians.
On the 14th of July YLE's Channel 1 interviewed Elina Laavi, the vice-
president of SETA4, and
Päivi Räsänen, the head of the Christian Democratic Party. The interview
was a prime example of these opposing voices getting coverage in the
media.
One of the main arguments of the opponents of same-sex marriage is the
assertion that marriage is by definition a union between one man and one
woman and it should not be meddled with. In the above-mentioned interview
Päivi Räsänen argues that historically marriage has included only one man
and one woman, and this is how it should remain (
Sukupuolineutraali). The biblical definition of marriage is also a
union of one man and one woman. Though Räsänen bases her definition of
marriage on her religious views it should be noted that among religious
people and even among clergy there are people whose interpretation of the
Bible does not define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.
For those in favour of same-sex marriage the important argument is that
of parity. The Constitution guarantees equal rights regardless of gender.
Since marriages and registered partnerships do not have all the same
rights and responsibilities, the current system is clearly unequal and as
such in contradiction with the Constitution. An institution of Marriage
that would include all couples regardless of gender would correct this
inequality by giving same-sex couples their missing rights and getting rid
of the redundant system of registered partnerships.
Tanja Lehtoranta, the secretary general of SETA, argues that a system
of two separate institutions is inherently unequal. Historically, separate
institutions of marriage have been used to distinguish people of lower
social status or of a different race from the mainstream population
(Lehtoranta). For instance in Portugal same-sex couples rejected the idea
of a separate institution because slaves had historically been in a
similar position (Katolinen). A marriage institution common to all
would also eliminate situations wherein same-sex couples are forced to
reveal their sexuality whenever asked about their marital status. This
could expose them to discrimination for instance when applying for jobs
(Lehtoranta).
Räsänen argues that discrimination against homosexuals should not be
allowed; however, she does not see the issue of same-sex marriage in terms
of discrimination. According to Räsänen, marriage is fundamentally a union
of two people of the opposite sexes; as such, denying two same-sex people
marriage does not count as discrimination (Sukupuolineutraali).
Regardless of Räsänen’s assurance that she is against discrimination, she
clearly does not favour equal rights for same-sex couples. She is against
giving same-sex couples adoption rights, even condemning the 2009 law
amendment which gave same-sex couples in registered partnerships partial
adoption rights. During the Gay Night she also explicitly stated that in
her view there is nothing wrong with homosexuals as people but they should
not engage in homosexual behaviour, as that is sin (Homoilta). In
practise this would mean that homosexuals would have to deny themselves
any kind of intimate relationship, making Räsänen’s renouncement of
discrimination look rather weak.
Räsänen also points out that the gender of the participants is not the
only way in which marriage is regulated according to values: it has also
been determined that only two people may enter into matrimony and that
they may not be related to one another: for instance blood relatives are
not allowed to marry. Therefore, she feels, it is acceptable to also rule
out same-sex marriage (Homoilta). However, the fact that marriage
has been regulated does not mean that it should be regulated in the manner
the Räsänen suggests. Her argument is weak because she takes her
definition of marriage for granted rather than arguing for it. Theologist
Pasi Turunen, her fellow debater on the Yle panel, even compared
heterosexual marriage to gravity (Homoilta). Their point is that
marriage is immutable as a union of one man and one woman, but the fact
that marriage is regulatable according to values shows their assumption to
be false.
Räsänen and the other opponents of same-sex marriage base their
insistence that marriage is by definition between one man and one woman on
their interpretation of the Bible. However, the legislative process in
Finland is secular and laws should not be based on religious beliefs.
Additionally, the fact that marriage has historically been heterosexual
does not mean that it could not become more inclusive. For instance,
marriage between two people of different races has historically been
prohibited yet is quite acceptable today. Räsänen is correct in saying
that marriage can and has been regulated according to values, but she
fails to justify why marriage should be defined according to conservative
values and not more progressive ones that would allow same-sex couples to
be included.
The Issue of Rainbow Families
Because the proposed gender-neutral marriage law includes full adoption
rights for same-sex couples, the debate inevitably also includes the issue
of homosexuals as parents. In the Gay Night panel discussion most of the
opponents of same-sex marriage subscribed to the view that in an ideal
family a child would have two parents, both a mother and a father. It was
admitted that in today’s society many children only have one parent and
that many children are already being raised by same-sex couples. According
to the opponents this is not an ideal situation; while they do not condemn
such families, neither would they encourage their creation (
Homoilta).
The counter-argument from the rainbow families is that it is not the
gender of the parents that matters but rather that the children are able
to grow up in a loving environment. Family Federation Sexologist Tarja
Sandberg, who also participated in the panel discussion, concurs with this
point, emphasising that what children need for healthy development is a
stable home environment with loving parents, something that same-sex
couples are quite capable of providing. A number of the participants of
the Gay Night also referenced studies which show that children of
homosexual couples are just as socially and psychologically healthy as the
children of heterosexual couples (Homoilta).
It was also pointed out that, unlike heterosexual couples, same-sex
couples have no unplanned children. For same-sex couples the decision to
have children always requires premeditation, whether through adoption or
artificial insemination, and as such same-sex couples may actually be
better equipped to act as parents. Additionally, giving same-sex couples
full adoption rights would not mean that any couple could adopt any child:
as with heterosexual couples their suitability and ability to parent would
be very closely examined within the rules and regulations that govern any
adoption process.
According to the estimation of Juha Jämsä, the chairman of the Finnish
Rainbow Families Association, there are already thousands of children in
rainbow families in Finland (Homoilta). Though the lack of adoption
rights makes it unnecessarily difficult for same-sex couples to build
families, it is not impossible. Same-sex parents have been bringing up
children for decades despite the legal restrictions. The children have
commonly been from previous heterosexual relationships or from private
arrangements between male and female same-sex couples. Rather than
stopping same-sex couples from having children, the current legislation
ends up hurting the legal rights of the already existing families and
their children. Any children that only have one of their parents as a
legally acknowledged guardian are in a disadvantaged situation in the
event of a death or break-up.
The Position of the Church on the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is still working on a
definitive position on the issue of same-sex marriage. As of late 2010,
there are dissenting opinions among both congregations and ecclesiastic
workers all the way up to the bishops of the different dioceses. Some
ministers and bishops are willing to wed and bless same-sex couples while
others are strictly against such procedures. The Church's decision-making
body, the Synod, has thus far only determined that a church
representative may pray with and bless the home of a same-sex couple (
Rekisteröidyn). However, there are no practical instructions on how
this should be done. Additionally, the Synod does not expressly forbid
giving a blessing to registered partnerships, which means that the
practise is left up to the judgement of individual pastors (
Homoliittojen).
Church Views against Gender-neutral Marriage
Differences of opinion within the Church5
arise from differing interpretations of the Bible.
According to Eero Huovinen, the former bishop of Helsinki (retired as of
August 2010), the Lutheran faith clearly determines that marriage is an
institution that can only exist between one man and one woman. In the same
statement, Huovinen went so far as to suggest that if the gender-neutral
marriage law passes, and it includes a requirement that the Church must
marry whoever wishes to be married, the Church might have to consider
giving up the right to wed couples altogether (Piispa Huovinen). If
that were to happen, all couples would have to register their marriage at
a registrar’s office and the Church’s role would be purely ceremonial. The
change to church weddings would be minimal; many couples already get
married at a registrar’s office and only go to church to get a blessing
for their union: the two ceremonies are not essentially different (
Vihkioikeuden).
The suggestion that the Church might give up the right to marry might
have been more of a provocation than an actual threat. According to
current legislation, the Church has the right to choose who it weds, and
the proposed gender-neutral marriage law does not include a guarantee of a
church wedding either (Gender-Neutral). It is, however, a fear of
some members of the Church that the gender-neutral law proposal will be
changed so that it includes the right to a church wedding, in which case
the Church would lose its ability to decide for itself who to marry. They
would then be legally required to marry couples that according to their
belief should not have the right to marry. However, as the proposed law
change includes no infringement on the Church’s autonomy and such addition
is not essential to the concept of gender-neutral marriage, it is
difficult to determine how real the presumed threat actually is.
Church Views in Favour of Gay Rights
Not all members of the Church feel the same way as Bishop Huovinen. For
example the Bishop of Espoo, Mikko Heikka, shared his differing views
regarding same-sex marriage in a letter to the editor of Helsingin
Sanomat6. According to
Heikka the advancement of gay rights is a positive thing from the
perspective of Church ethos, which values human rights and equality (
Kirkko). In the same letter, Heikka also points out that although many
people base their argument against gender-neutral marriage on the
traditional religious understanding of marriage between a man and a woman,
in actuality Church doctrine has continually been changing. The Lutheran
Church has gradually approved contraception, abortion, divorce and re-
marriage. In the same way the Church could modernise its views on marriage
to emphasise love, commitment and faithfulness as the fundamental
characteristics of a marriage rather than focusing on the gender of the
couple. However, in spite of his apparent support for same-sex couples,
Heikka acknowledges that in its current state of divided opinion, the
Church is not ready to wholly adopt the views he has laid out. According
to Heikka, if the issue is forced on the Church it might even lead to a
splitting of the Church in two. Therefore he suggests that the Church be
allowed more time to discuss the issue, and the advancement of same-sex
rights should be done within the current system of two separate
institutions (Kirkko).
Archbishop7 Kari
Mäkinen shares Mikko Heikka’s views. YLE’s A-studio programme interviewed
Mäkinen in August of 2010 about the Church’s possible intention to give up
the right to marry and his views on the proposed gender-neutral marriage
law. Like Heikka, Mäkinen emphasised that he wants to see equality in
society and that this also applies to same-sex couples. It is society’s
responsibility to guarantee equal rights and responsibilities for lasting
unions regardless of the sexual orientation. Similarly to Heikka he does
not regard it likely that the Church would change its concept of marriage
at this point in time. He is adamant, though, that the Church should not
give up its right to marry, and that if the gender-neutral marriage law
should pass, the Church should retain its right to choose who it joins in
matrimony (A-Studio).
Only the Bishop of Kuopio, Wille Riekkinen, has gone so far as to
publicly announce that if the proposed gender-neutral marriage law should
pass, he would be willing to marry same-sex couples. He also thinks it
important that the marrying should be done on a voluntary basis, and not
because of a legal imperative (Piispa Wille). In the past, some
members of the clergy have blessed registered partnerships. Nevertheless,
such instances are rare, with the 2008 article reporting only ten or so
same-sex couples having been given a blessing by the Church (
Rovasti). The difficulty in getting a blessing arises not only from
the lack of clergy willing to administer the blessing, but also from the
fact that there still is no official ceremony or authorisation given by
the Synod.
The Opinions of Sexual Minorities on Marriage and Family
How do individual homosexuals and same-sex couples feel about marriage
and family? In 2001 Sinikka Kyyrönen conducted a study on “Concepts of
Family and Registered Partnership Among Homosexuals” for the Family
Research Unit of the University of Jyväskylä. The participants were
interviewed before the Act of Registered Partnerships came into effect,
but the views put forward by the interviewees are very much relevant to
the current discussion. Even though the current proposal was not even an
option in 2001, the larger themes of formalisation of same-sex
relationships and the significance of family remain the same.
Kyyrönen lists a number of reasons why same-sex couples want to
formalise their relationships. These also apply to homosexual people who
are not in a relationship but still want the right to have that formal
recognition. The first reason is equality before the law: the right to
formalise one’s relationship should be available to all regardless of
gender or sexual orientation. All the interviewees agreed on this and
viewed the issue as a matter of human rights (Kyyrönen 37). The second
reason cited in the study is the lack of legal rights for unregistered
couples and the issues this may cause in the event of death, serious
injury or break-up (Kyyrönen 38-39). This problem has since been fixed
with the Act of Registered Partnerships, but this fairly recent
invisibility of same-sex couples before the law illustrates one of the
reasons why same-sex couples feel so strongly about the right to formalise
their relationships.
Emotional and psychological reasons are also part of the picture.
According to Kyyrönen, a stable relationship is seen as an important goal:
finding the right partner, engagement and marriage are significant
milestones in the life of an individual. There is also a clear wish to
distinguish important relationships from others through the formalisation
of marriage (Kyyrönen 40). The act of marriage, or formalising a
relationship is general, is associated with credibility, stability and
increased durability and security for the relationship. Connected to the
credibility and status afforded by marriage is the feeling that a formal
union is seen as something that cannot be taken away or denied by other
people: it moves same-sex couples from the margins of society to the
centre (Kyyrönen 41). Many of Kyyrönen’s interviewees expressed a wish
that the right to formal unions would change people’s unflattering
perceptions about homosexuals in general. Not only would same-sex couples
cease to be seen as unwilling to commit and jumping from one relationship
to another, but same-sex couples would also be able to express affection
more publicly without disapproval (Kyyrönen 44-45).
Finally, the secure position of the children is a definite
consideration in the formalising of a relationship. A formal relationship
offers better conditions for building a family and increases the security
of any existing children (Kyyrönen 47). At the moment adoption within the
family is possible for same-sex couples, but they may not adopt from
without. The current legislation creates the peculiar situation that
single men and women are able to adopt, but not if they have partners of
the same sex. Kyyrönen’s study shows that people in fact have very similar
views on the meaning of family regardless of sexual orientation: love and
stability are the main characteristics (23, 50). Though it seems a great
concern of the opponents of full adoption rights for same-sex couples that
a child should have both a mother and a father, Kyyrönen cites several
studies which have shown that the children of rainbow families are very
similar to those that have grown up with one parent of each gender (31).
The interviewees had differing opinions regarding the role of the
Church in the formalisation of a relationship. Some felt that the
religious aspect was important to them and that having the Church’s
blessing somehow made the union more “real” than having just a civil
ceremony (Kyyrönen 48). However, due to the Church’s past and for some
part still present negative attitude to homosexuality, some of those who
were interviewed felt that they had no need for the Church’s blessing and
that the Church should not have anything to do with the formalisation of
relationships (Kyyrönen 49). Therefore the concern over same-sex couples
demanding a Church wedding may be overstated, as there might be far less
interest in the Church’s blessing than has been assumed.
The Future of Marriage in Finland
That marriage is an important institution for Finnish society is not
under question. However, there are differing opinions as to the definition
of marriage: should it be exclusively between one man and one woman or
should the rights and responsibilities afforded by marriage also be
extended to same-sex couples? Equality regardless of gender or sexuality
is the larger issue. Though equality is one of the cornerstones of the
Finnish welfare society that thrives for egalitarianism, the controversy
over same-sex marriage arises from the resistance to fully include
homosexuals in that equality.
Even most opponents of the proposed gender-neutral marriage law concede
that discrimination against homosexuals is not acceptable, even if those
who are for same-sex marriage and those who are against it do not always
see eye to eye on what actually counts as discrimination and what does
not. The opponents of the new law reject discrimination, yet still resist
granting same-sex couples equal rights, even claming it was a mistake to
give same-sex couples any adoption rights in the first place. Their
argument relies on what they believe to be right and wrong based on their
religious beliefs. However, despite the national status of Finland’s two
churches, of which approximately 80% of Finns are members, Finland is a
secular country and the laws of the land should not be determined by
anyone’s religious beliefs, no matter how firmly held.
The more progressive bishops of the Church have suggested that the
Church should be allowed more time to figure out where it stands on the
issue of gay marriage. Meanwhile, they have proposed that registered
partnerships be developed to include the legal rights currently missing,
namely full adoption rights and the right to a shared last name. However,
even if registered partnerships were amended to include the missing
rights, the system of two different institutions would still hold
homosexuals as separate, disallowing the possibility to integrate with the
heterosexual mainstream.
One shared common institution of marriage could resolve the issue of
equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Homosexuals have
waited for decades to have equal rights; even registered partnerships
were a compromise in order to get one step further. The proposed law does
not interfere with the Church’s autonomy; if the proposal were to pass,
the Church would still get to decide for itself who it marries. The
proposed law would probably put pressure on the Church to marry same-sex
couples, but avoiding hard decisions is hardly a valid reason to hold
back gay rights. The future of the proposed law remains to be seen after
the next election, but even if it fails, the issue of same-sex marriage
is likely to come up again until it is eventually resolved.
Notes
- Aamulehti is a Finnish newspaper published in Tampere. It has the
second largest circulation of all Finnish newspapers. (
Back)
- LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender and is used to represent the diversity of the “gay
community” The variants LGBTQ and LGBTI are also sometimes used as even
more inclusive variants, with Q standing for Queer and I standing
for Intersex. (Back)
- A rainbow family is a term used to refer to the families of same-sex
couples, generally one or more children and parents of the same sex. These
families may also have more than two parents that share custody, even if
only two parents are legally recognised. (Back)
- SETA stands for Seksuaalinen Tasa-arvo (=Sexual
Equality). SETA is a non-governmental organisation that promotes equal
rights for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or
gender expression. (Back)
- “The Church” refers to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland,
which is one of the two national churches of Finland. Slightly less than
80% of Finns are members of the Church. It has also been the most vocal
religious institution in the debate over same-sex marriage. (Back)
- Helsingin Sanomat is the largest national newspaper in Finland. (Back)
- The Archbishop, i.e. the Bishop of Turku, is the head of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. In practise, the archbishop does
not outrank the other bishops. His special duties are acting as the
chairman when the bishops convene, and taking care of relations with other
Churches. (Back)
Works Cited
