The results may be summarized into three main findings. First, there seems to be extensive support for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in the Norwegian population. Our data indicate that two thirds of the Norwegian population support equal civil marriage rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples, and the majority also supports equal rights to church weddings. Taking the difficulty of comparing various results due to disparate methods of assessment into consideration, the support for equal marriage rights in Norway appears, in addition to be quite high, also to be quite stable. Already in 1998, nearly half the Norwegian population supported equal right to church weddings for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples (MMI
1998). Second, the current data show that the majority of the Norwegian population is against, unwilling to take a stand or uncertain concerning equal parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples. The increase in support for adoption rights is, on the other hand, seemingly quite distinct. Close to half of our sample believed that the right to apply for adoption should be independent of sexual orientation as compared to 1998 when only 25% of the Norwegian population supported such rights (EOS Gallup Europe
2003; MMI
1998). Similar trends are seen in other Scandinavian countries and in the USA where the majority of the population at present seem to support adoption rights for lesbian and gay couples (EOS Gallup Europe
2003; European Commission
2006; People Press Organization
2009). Third, the current findings show that half the participants are unwilling to take a stand, are concerned or uncertain regarding the welfare of children who grow up with lesbian and gay parents. In 1998, this was the case for somewhat more than half the sample, but a larger proportion then reported that they were explicitly concerned as opposed to not taking a stand or being uncertain (MMI
1998). Population concerns in relation to lesbian and gay parenthood are also reported in earlier studies from other countries (Crawford and Solliday
1996; King
2001; McLeod et al.
1999; Morse et al.
2008).
More men than women reported that they hold negative beliefs about equal marriage and parenting rights for gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples. More men than women were also concerned about the welfare children with lesbian and gay parents. This is consistent with attitude studies showing that men’s attitudes towards lesbian women and gay men generally tend to be more negative (Herek
2002). According to Steffens and Wagner (
2004), unfavorable attitudes towards homosexuals are often rooted in people’s gender belief systems, or “the broader belief system about women, men, and their appropriate roles” (p. 138). These belief systems (or systems that tell us what it is to be a man or a woman, respectively) have in general been more rigid and restricted for men and masculinity than for women and femininity (Anderssen
2002; Kite and Whitley
1996). Our data further show that being older, being a parent, having a high religious faith and voting for centre or right-wing parties also predict negative beliefs about equal marriage and parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples as well as concern for the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents. Our findings are in general consistent with those existing in literature from other countries. The fact that beliefs about same-sex marriage rights, lesbian and gay parenthood and beliefs about the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents at large are predicted by the same demographic variables, including religion and political affiliation, is supported by earlier findings (e.g. Brumbaugh et al.
2008; EOS Gallup Europe
2003; Pearl and Galupo
2007; Morse et al.,
2008). Research on population attitudes towards lesbian and gay parenting further suggests that negative attitudes are associated with antigay attitudes and sexual prejudice (Crawford and Solliday
1996; Morse et al.
2008). One explanation for this could be that people with antigay attitudes and sexual prejudice more easily feel threatened by change and flexing of societal boundaries, with beliefs more often based on stereotypes and traditional family scripts (Morse et al.
2008).
Policy Processes and Beliefs About Equal Marriage and Parenting Rights
Two thirds of the population supports equal civil marriage rights, and there is majority support for equal right to church weddings. Whilst the proportion of the population who supports equal adoption rights is growing, the majority of the Norwegian population is against or uncertain concerning equal parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples. We want to point to some interrelated policy processes to understand this.
First, according to Kurtz (
2004), extensive support for gay marriage-like rights must be understood in light of the changing role of marriage in Scandinavian countries. High rates of cohabitation and family policies that reflect a flexible and pragmatic adaptation to these changing cohabitation patterns (including systems for financial support; Noack
2001) make it plausible that Scandinavian populations are more likely than others to support same-sex marriage rights and be innovators in giving marriage-like rights to gays and lesbians. Behind such developments are long-term trends such as a decline in religious beliefs and practices (secularism), a strong welfare state, early advances in contraception and abortion, high female employment and increased status of women through economic independence (Kurtz
2004).
Second, the high support for equal marriage rights and the growing support for adoption rights may be understood as a result of incremental legal changes for both these issues. It is reasonable to think that a Partnership Act since 1993, which secured most marriage-like rights with the exception of equal rights to become parents, has had a distinct effect on the present positive population attitudes towards equal marriage rights in the Norwegian population. As a relevant comparison, prior to the Partnership Act in 1993, only a few opinion polls indicated that the majority of the Norwegian population was in favour of a Partnership Act for same-sex couples (Halvorsen
1998). Another example of attitude change in a broader part of the Norwegian population is the fact that whilst the Christian People’s Party opposed the Partnership Act in 1993, they expressed support for it in the debate fronting the new gender-neutral Marriage Act. Growing support for adoption rights may also partly be explained by incremental legal changes regarding gay adoption and fostering. The Law on Adoption from 2002 permitted adoption of stepchildren in lesbian and gay partnerships. In the period from 1993, when the Partnership Law was made effective, and until 2004, limited but still increased opportunities for lesbian and gay partners to become foster parents were introduced (Ministry of Children and Equality
2004). Interestingly, and in spite of the new gender-neutral Marriage Law, current foster care regulations uphold the principle that foster homes, as the main rule, should be heterosexual couples. Grønningsæter and Nuland (
2008) points to this fact, claiming that such wording can be considered discriminatory.
In contrast to a gradual introduction of adoption and fostering rights for lesbian and gay couples, there has not been the same incremental growth in support for assisted fertilization for lesbian couples. Until the gender-neutral Marriage Law was enacted in 2009, lesbian couples could not receive state-sponsored assisted fertilization in Norway. Therefore, this may also partly explain the lower support for such services at present. A related theme can be illustrated by Dalton and Bielby (
2000) who stated that family institutions are linked powerfully to basic and fundamental family scripts. These scripts appear to change much more slowly than the actual development of different family forms. It is therefore to be expected that support for parenting rights may correspond to their level of deviation from fundamental family scripts (Morse et al.
2008). More support for adoption rights for lesbian and gay couples than support for state-sponsored assisted fertilization for lesbian couples may indicate that this is the case also in the Norwegian population. In general, we want to point out that whilst formal recognition of practices or behaviours in laws and regulations has effects on population attitudes, these processes are not unidirectional. Introduction of legal changes also needs a certain level of population support, as well as majority support in Parliament.
Third, higher support of marriage rights than parenting rights for lesbian and gay couples may relate to the fact that marriage and childbearing have become less directly connected over time, in Scandinavian countries especially (Halvorsen
1998; Kiernan
2001). In 1997, more than 40% of children born in Nordic countries were born outside marriage (Kiernan
2001). In 2009, this was the case for 56% of Norwegian children (Statistics Norway
2010a,
b). Consequently, the nexus between marriage and reproduction has been broken (Badgett
2004). Norway is a good example of a country where relationships with children and relationships between two adults increasingly have been seen as two different social phenomena. The relationship between two adults have for a long time been considered a private matter for most people in Norway. However, parenthood, implying a third party (the child) now also with own specific rights, has mainly been considered differently, where society should both have a special responsibility and a say (Halvorsen
1998). Such trends are most likely reflected in our findings where large parts of the Norwegian population seemingly feel much more at ease with marriage rights as compared with parenting rights for lesbian and gay couples.
Fourth, and following the reflections above, opposition to lesbian and gay parenting has until recently been visible and clearly reflected in, for example, both Council of Europe’s recommendations to member states (Swedish Official Report
2001) and in Norwegian law (Danielsen
2005). Therefore, as Graham says, “both public opinion and the law until recently, also in Scandinavian countries, have regarded heterosexual married couples as the privileged locus for reproduction of persons, and more precisely citizens” (Graham
2004, p. 27). In addition to more limited incremental changes concerning parenting rights for lesbian and gay couples compared with other marriage-like rights, policy regulations and provisions in Norwegian law have at the same time discouraged lesbian and gay parenthood (Danielsen
2005). Our findings therefore support Morse et al. (
2008) who claim that an apparent positive attitudinal shift towards lesbian and gays in general, to a lesser extent, includes lesbian and gay parenting and the question of lesbian and gay parenthood.
Finally, we want to comment on the findings concerning Norwegian beliefs about egg donation and surrogacy. This practice is still illegal in Norway, but at present quite widely discussed, also because using egg donation and surrogacy abroad have gradually become more common among both single parents and heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples (European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
2009). These technologies constitute reproduction strategies most deviant to traditional family scripts (Dalton and Bielby
2000; Morse et. al.
2008), something that may partly explain why there were no proposals in Proposition nr. 33 (
2007–2008) concerning provisions for such services in the new Norwegian gender-neutral Marriage Act. Still, in our sample, there is a clear majority support for legalizing egg donation and more people who support surrogacy services in regulated forms in Norway compared with the support for gay men using surrogacy services abroad. These findings may partly be explained by an increased emphasis on rights perspectives in the public. On one hand, it may indicate more openness and increased emphasis on an equal rights perspective in relation to who should have the right to become parents. In addition, these findings may also be understood in light of increased emphasis on children as own right holders. Children’s right to knowledge about their own biological origin and rights such as protection from being bought and sold have found their way into the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as into Norwegian law. Such rights are, however, poorly protected in many unregulated foreign-assisted fertility markets. Both these phenomena have most likely influenced the present quite extensive support for legalizing egg donation in Norway and may partly explain why more people seemingly support surrogacy in regulated forms in Norway compared with gay men using such services abroad.
Concern for the Welfare of Children with Lesbian and Gay Parents—What is it About?
The main predictor of negative beliefs about equal parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples are concerns about the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents. We will make some comments on this, based on our findings, and the debate ahead of the Norwegian gender-neutral Marriage Act.
First, participants in this study seemed to perceive outside factors that are beyond the control of the parents (e.g. bullying or negative social reactions) to be a greater threat to children’s welfare than growing up with lesbian and gay parents in itself. The Norwegian population may therefore have become less affected by traditional developmental theories and their predictions of negative outcomes for children who are raised in nontraditional families (Lambert
2005) or by more ideological viewpoints such as lesbian and gay parenthood not being normal or natural (Clarke
2001; Folgerø
2008). Instead, their main concerns seemingly focus on how children and their lesbian and gay parents are treated, accepted and included in the wider society. For example, whilst 60% of the sample said that sexual orientation does not matter for good parenting, only 40% of the sample thought that the society is ready for children growing up with lesbian and gay parents. Whilst research has not documented serious negative developmental effects for children who are raised by lesbian and gay parents (e.g. Crowl et al.
2008; Biblarz and Stacey
2010), increased likelihood for negative reactions and stigmatization have been reported by some (e.g. Fairtlough
2008; Robitaille and Saint-Jacques
2009; Stefansen et al.
2009). Questions and concern in relation to possible negative social reactions and bullying of children who grow up with lesbian and gay parents are therefore relevant and must not be ignored. It is also, on the other hand, known that increased risks of stigmatization and bullying are frequently used as arguments for undermining or opposing lesbian parenthood in general (Clarke et al.
2004). This should also be considered when trying to explain the present results.
Second, our findings further suggest that there is higher uncertainty and unwillingness to take a stand than direct concern regarding the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents. Whilst more than one third was either unwilling to express a view or reported that they were uncertain about how to perceive the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents, overall, <20% expressed concern. This is very different from 1998 when 41–48% of the Norwegian population expressed concern about this and <15% found this question difficult to answer (MMI
1998). Persons with higher education are overrepresented in the present sample. However, we believe that the change in proportions from 1998 until 2008 still indicates a movement in the Norwegian population in the direction of more openness regarding issues related to lesbian and gay parenting and children’s welfare. This would be similar to what Grønningsæter and Nuland (
2008) refer to has taken place in relation to lesbian and gay love, partnership and sexuality in general. Increased acceptance of non-heterosexual expressions are most often explained by incremental changes combined with increased visibility in a range of societal arenas (Anderssen and Slåtten
2008). Such developments are now the case also for lesbian and gay parenting. Why many seemingly have replaced direct concern with playing a more waiting game in relation to attitudes towards lesbian and gay parenthood and the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents may partly be understood in light of these trends. Our findings therefore also shade the statement of Morse et al. (
2008) that a general positive attitudinal shift towards homosexuals in general does not yet include lesbian and gay parenting and the question of lesbian and gay parenthood. Similarly, Herek (
2006) says that in the current debate in the USA on these and related questions, people appear to have replaced definite opinions with holding parallel and conflicting values, on one hand adhering to traditional beliefs but on the other hand also valuing fairness, rights and non-discrimination.
Third, the fact that concerns regarding the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents turn out to be the most significant predictor of negative attitudes towards granting equal parenting rights to lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples also invites some further reflections, beyond the discussions above. Folgerø (
2008) argues that lesbian and gay parenthood challenges cornerstones of Western civilization such as normative discourses on genetic parenthood (the right to know one’s genetic origin), children as a result of romantic love, the need for and the right to have two parents, and the necessity for complementary gender roles in parents to secure a healthy psychosocial development. Population concerns in relation to lesbian and gay parenting and the welfare of children with gay and lesbian parents are therefore to be expected (Herek
2006). Concern and uncertainty were prevalent both in the Norwegian public debate preceding the new gender-neutral Marriage Act and in our findings. Both supporters and opponents of the Norwegian gender-neutral Marriage Act (Proposition nr. 33
2007–2008) seemingly placed high value on children’s welfare, needs and interests, and the importance of children as own right holders in relation to lesbian and gay parenthood. On one hand, this may reflect that children, as bearers of their own rights and with their own interests to be heeded, have become a well-established construct in Norwegian society. On the other hand, it also shows that the definition of these needs and interests and the meaning of children’s own rights in relation to lesbian and gay parenthood are contested.
Supporters of equal rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals have traditionally emphasized a rights perspective, whilst opponents more often have invoked arguments in relation to religion or tradition to support their position (Herek
2006; Price et al.
2005). In relation to equal parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples in Norway, opponents of such provisions in law have also adopted a children’s rights perspective or the use of “rights” language. Even so, without necessarily endorsing egalitarian values in general (Ellis et al.
2002), opponents seem to be trying to define children’s rights, needs and interests within the framework of religious and traditional arguments. With respect to lesbian and gay parenthood, children’s rights then imply the right to have a traditional, normal and “natural” family with two parents of opposite sexes, etc. Whilst there has been relatively high and stable support for same-sex marriage rights in Norway over time, there has been more indecision and uncertainty in relation to equal parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples. This may have left the field more open to influence or discussions about what children’s needs and interests are in relation to gay parenthood and what is meant by children as bearers of their own rights in respect of these questions. It may therefore have been a strategic choice for opponents to focus on a children’s rights perspective when arguing against provisions for equal parenting rights for lesbian and gay parents in the new gender-neutral Marriage Act. Halvorsen (
1998) claims that one way of neutralizing controversial political views or arguments that are taboo may be to use euphemisms. In relation to questions about equal parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples, a children’s rights perspective fronted by the opponents of the new gender-neutral Marriage Act may therefore also be understood as a euphemism for more controversial arguments based on religion or tradition, or even taboo arguments such as lesbian and gay parents being of less value or of a different quality.
Why Norway, Why Now?
Norway was first among the Nordic countries to adopt a progressive gender-neutral Marriage Act. This is interesting, taking the fact that there historically have been less liberal attitudes towards family policy and alternative family forms in Norway as compared with, for example, Sweden (European Commission
2006). Less liberal attitudes may be understood in light of factors such as less urban living and a somewhat more general conservative religious and political landscape in Norway. In Norway, a Christian People’s Party, with profession of faith for their representatives, has been part of a centre or centre/right coalition government on four different occasions between 1985 and 2005. Norway has also, since the 1990s, and differently from for example Sweden, had a quite large opposition party, the Progress Party, located at the far right in the political landscape. Between 15% and 23% of the Norwegian population has in the last 15 years given their votes to this party. It is reasonable to think that such a landscape reflects slightly more conservative attitudes, which again are known to affect the level of support for equal marriage and parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples (e.g. Brumbaugh et al.
2008; Pearl and Galupo
2007; EOS Gallup Europe
2003).
The fact that a new gender-neutral Marriage Act was passed already in 2008 in Norway may be explained by several circumstances, also partly coinciding in time. In 2003, the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child was incorporated in the Norwegian Human Rights Law (1999). This law takes precedence over national law in case of contradictory provisions (Sandberg
2004) and brought up to date children’s rights on a number of different arenas in the Norwegian society. Two years later, in 2005, Norway had a shift to a social democratic/socialist/green coalition government with a majority in Parliament. The political shift was contrary to the present political trend in many European countries, and in Norway, this was the first majority government since the mid 1980s, a government coalition which, for the first time in history, also included the Socialist Left-Wing Party. Such circumstances have most likely encouraged both the promotion and the enactment of a new a gender- neutral Marriage Act.
Limitations
Whilst a Web sample cannot be fully representative, we believe that the study presents attitudes reflected in the Norwegian population. A Web-based solution was particularly suitable for our purpose because we were assessing beliefs about sensitive themes and we specifically wanted to avoid social desirability when answering.
The present findings are drawn from data in a larger survey that assessed beliefs or attitudes towards a number of topics related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual persons. Because of the sparse research literature on these topics, we had to develop the questionnaire ourselves by using measures based on polls and items in survey research on attitudes towards lesbian and gay people, framed according to contemporary Norwegian laws and context. Two pilot studies were conducted.
We realize that construct validity and test–retest reliability have yet to be established. The survey topics, the available response categories and the sequence of questions all may have affected the direction of participants’ responses to the items on attitudes towards same-sex marriage, lesbian and gay parenting and the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents. Furthermore, the questionnaire items provided both the response categories “Neither agree nor disagree” and “Uncertain”. This may have influenced the number of people who chose not to express an opinion on the issues in question. Finally, whilst the sample at large reflected the demographic profile in Norway, participants with a university/college degree were overrepresented in our study. As higher education is known to positively affect beliefs about marriage and parenting rights for lesbian and gay couples (Brumbaugh et al.
2008; Pearl and Galupo
2007), this has to be taken into account when reading the findings.
The items used in the present analyses were placed towards the end of the questionnaire. When responding to these items, the sample had already expressed opinions on a number of questions relating to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues. This may have led either to a reinforcing of beliefs or an increased level of reflection.