Finland may not immediately come across as a particularly open-minded, gay-friendly society to an outsider. Finnish towns and cities are small by international standards (only Helsinki has more than 200,000 inhabitants), so one would expect that such a small town society would not be open to the discussion of gay marriage. But a bill in favor of gay marriage is currently under consideration in Finland.

The private act for same-sex partnership makes sense. Presented on the 28th of May and debated on the 5th of June of 1996, the act proposes that couples of the same sex be granted the right to register as couples. A good Nordic precedent for this act had been set: Denmark has allowed gay couples to register since 1989 and Norway and Sweden followed suit in 1993. The terms of the Finnish act can be obtained from the Internet (http://www.seta.fi/psuhde/pbill.html), but here I shall try to summarize its contents and implications.

The bill proposes that gay couples could enter into a partnership that, with some exceptions, would be recognized and could be dissolved on the same basis as heterosexual unions. This is a positive step, but the exceptions are noteworthy. The first exception is that gay couples still would not have the right to a Church wedding. Church marriages are very significant in Finnish society: 90% of the population are members of the Lutheran Church and pay a "church tax" of around 2%. Fortunately, though, the Church tends to support gay couples; the former archbishop was actively gay-friendly and the current archbishop has to my personal knowledge privately encouraged gay clergy members. So Church weddings may be possible once such unions have been legally authorized.

The other exception is that gay couples would not have the same rights to adoption as other couples. The denial of the right to adoption is obviously the biggest problem with the act. This means that children who have been born into a gay family or who have lived with a gay couple from a very early age would not automatically be eligible for adoption by the social parents. Also, if the biological parent becomes ill or dies, the social parent would have no right or obligation to take care of the child. Responsibility would be transferred to the biological relatives of the child regardless of his or her relationship to the social parent. The act is likely to make it easier for social parents to legally adopt their children if the biological parent were incapacitated, but it would not make such arrangements automatic. The exclusion of these two important aspects from the bill means that its supporters can claim that it is ideologically and religiously neutral.

The aim of the act at this stage is to allow for the financial and legal recognition of gay couples. For instance, the act would allow that gay couples own all property jointly. If a couple were to separate, each partner would be entitled to receive half the property. If one of the partners were to die, the remaining partner would be entitled to the deceased partner's property. If, however, the deceased partner had children, half the property would legally belong to the remaining partner and the other half would be divided equally between the children. Couples could write a will making it impossible for children to claim their inheritance rights over the couple's home whilst the other partner was still alive.

The act would have a negative impact, however, on gay couples claiming social benefits such as unemployment. At the present moment, an unemployed gay partner can receive full benefits as a single person for an indefinite period. If the other partner were working, his or her earnings would be taken into consideration when the other person was without work for more than 500 days. The first 500 days would be calculated according to his or her contributions to the social security system. However, under the new ruling, the working partner would be expected to financially support the non-working partner.

Another social benefit gay couples would not have access to is parental leave, which is very generous in Finland—parents can stay at home until the child's third birthday. For the first eleven months, a parent can receive two-thirds of his or her salary. After that, parents receive the equivalent of around $200 a month. Non-biological parents would not be entitled to these benefits, of course, because they would not be recognized as parents.

The real problem. . . arises in the acceptance of children in gay families.

The act would also affect taxation. At present, married couples are able to join forces and thus increase the total amount of tax-deductible expenses from their combined income. Unmarried heterosexual couples are allowed to take advantage of this system only if they have children. Obviously, gay couples cannot take advantage of the current system regardless of whether or not they have children. The future system would make it possible for married gay couples to fill in a joint tax declaration although unmarried gay couples with children would still not be eligible.

After the act was presented and debated, the government decided that Finnish society was not yet ready for such a radical change. However, they did accept that some adjustments need to be made and they set up a commission to investigate the matter. The committee members stated at the beginning of their enquiry that they were unwilling to grant gay couples the status of 'marriage', but that they could entertain the possibility that gay couples and heterosexual couples living together would be granted similar status. At the end of June of 1998, this committee presented their report to the cabinet minister. Copies of the report have proved difficult to obtain, but it has been hailed in the press as a very positive step forward.

Although the precise details are unclear, it seems almost certain that some changes will be made. These changes will almost certainly affect the rights of couples to inherit from one another, to claim social benefits, and to claim tax-deductible benefits.

So will Finland eventually allow gay couples to register? I am optimistic that the act will be passed soon after the millennium. Not only does the precedent set by Denmark, Norway and Sweden carry considerable weight, Finns are generally receptive to change. As a small nation, they have always had to respond faster to world changes than larger, more established nations. Furthermore, Finland is still a largely homogenous society, which means that Finnish gays are often regarded as primarily being 'one of us' on the basis of nationality rather than as something 'other'.

What will the Church's response to the act be? Again, I am optimistic. Many of the larger towns already have an active gay Christian movement led by openly gay clergy. Several high-standing members of the Lutheran community have spoken out positively on gay issues. Discussion in the newspapers following such statements has not been universally positive, but it reveals the presence of an important straight interest in gay issues. I do not envisage an immediate welcoming of gay couples to have their unions solemnized within the Church, but I do see tacit acceptance becoming more widespread. I can envisage gay church marriages becoming a reality in my lifetime.

The real problem, as I see it, arises in the acceptance of children in gay families. Denmark, the most gay-positive of the Nordic nations, has very recently made it possible for gay couples to adopt providing that one of the parents is a biological parent. Thus the ruling is far more beneficial to lesbians than to gay men. Without a Nordic precedent, Finland is unlikely to allow for full adoption rights.