Finnish Politics Homosexuality


Trying to stunt the tyranny of the minority.

If it was such a widely held idea, they should have had a referendum, with 2/3 of the public (or even within the parliament) vote for the initiative in order to pass, not with just a raw majority like they did in voting to join the EU.

However, speaking on Saturday, Päivi Räsänen also attacked Prime Minister Alexander Stubb for speaking out in support of same-sex marriage in a media interview prior to the vote. Räsänen claimed that Stubb’s remarks were not representative of the views of everyone in the four-party coalition, and suggested it was not impossible that his intervention could have swung the result.

Räsänen vows to challenge same-sex marriage decision

The Interior Minister and leader of the Christian Democrats says that her party still has a chance to oppose Friday’s decision by MPs to legalise gender-neutral unions, as the law change will require a further bill to be passed in the next parliament. Räsänen also attacked Prime Minister Alexander Stubb for publicly supporting gay marriage prior to Friday’s vote.

Sisäministeri Päivi Räsänen.
Interior Minister and leader of the Christian Democrats Päivi Räsänen Image: Yle

The Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen has vowed that her Christian Democrats party will make further challenges against a bill to legalise same-sex marriage in the course of the next parliament, despite MPs voting yesterday in favour of the measure.

Appearing at a party gathering in Vantaa, Räsänen said her party still has the chance to oppose a further bill which will need to be passed after the next election in order to finalise the change to the statute.

Räsänen said the Christian Democrats will again oppose the law change when the issue comes up in the next parliamentary term.

On Friday MPs voted in favour of legalising same-sex unions by 105 to 92. The bill originally appeared before parliament after a petition calling for marriage equality gained more than the required 50,000 signatures under the government’s “citizens’ initiative” programme. The vote marks the first time that a citizens’ initiative has received MPs’ backing in a parliamentary vote.

More here.

One Response

  1. This is an issue that is too important to be left to politicians who (ostensibly) represent and reflect the values of their constituents concerning the nature of marriage.

    The idea of course is that a politician elected to parliament to represent his/her constituents, will presumably vote for or against a policy in accordance with values of his/her constituents.

    This, of course, is by no means the case.

    It suggests a kind of arrogance that a politician can feel quite comfortable about casting a vote for or against a proposal such as a change in the definition of the nature of marriage without any acknowledgment of the values of those constituents he or her was elected to represent.

    For this reason the idea that a conscience vote on the floor of parliament is a satisfactory way to settle such an important issue must be rejected.

    The only way to settle an issue of such magnitude is for a plebiscite or referendum that gives all voters an opportunity to vote for against such a proposal.

    I understand at least 8,000 people have already left the Lutheran Church.

    For Christians who take their faith seriously the Finnish State Church is now no place to be.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.