If Britain is the mother of representative democracy, with one General Election every few years, Switzerland is used to going further and holding popular ballots four times a year as well. Government and Parliament are kept on a tight lead, with the citizenry picking and choosing, by 'yes' or 'no', federal laws prepared by Parliament (if enough citizens require a referendum), or constitutional amendments proposed by Parliament or a collective of citizens. But both countries share the view that new rights have to be fought for through the political process, rather than 'found' by a judge in abstract constitutional clauses.
Tomorrow, the Swiss, a rich and highly educated but undoubtedly conservative people, are going to give popular assent to a law granting gay and lesbian couples rights similar to marriage for heterosexual couples. The Federal Law on Registered Partnership for Same Sex Couples (in French; in German; in Italian), overwhelmingly adopted by Parliament on the 18 June 2004 and called to referendum by fringe movements of the religious right, is very similar indeed to the UK Civil Partnership Act which received royal assent on the 18 November 2004 and will come into force on 5 December 2005.
The change of attitude regarding gays and lesbians in the western world is quite extraordinary: it is less than 40 years since a prudent decriminalization of homosexual acts began in Britain (in 1967), following the Wolfenden report. And the very idea that same sex couples should be recognized and supported emerged only in the 1980s, an unlikely side-effect of the AIDS epidemic which forced gay men to go public or die, and society to acknowledge them or reject them (with great risk regarding the spread of the HIV virus). It was enacted into law for the first time in 1989 in Denmark.
In Switzerland, we were aware from the beginning of our special hurdle: having to convince not only (supposedly more enlightened) politicians, but the people as well. The drive started in 1993, and we thought it would be unwise to be confrontational - for instance, by directly submitting a proposal for a popular ballot. It was difficult enough to get support from public figures for a general non-binding petition to the Federal Parliament seeking 'equal rights for same sex couples'; and we ourselves were surprised to find the people in the street more willing to listen and more supportive than we thought. Ten years later, the campaign has produced openness and understanding, leading to a broad consensus on a pragmatic proposal.
Of course the Catholic church, virtually alone, is still against this law. But we avoided the sort of heated division between fundamentalisms that is blighting the American debate: nothing less than a redefinition of marriage to include gays and lesbians, as advocated by Andrew Sullivan, on one side; nothing else than heterosexual couples, on the other side. Interestingly, the three countries in Europe whose parliaments have chosen to open marriage to same sex couples rather than establishing a civil partnership regime are secular societies that resent a deeply religious past: a Catholic past in Spain and Belgium, a Protestant one in the Netherlands. But the Danish model is followed in all other European countries (with, so far, the French exception of a second-rate 'civil contract' open to all, offering inadequate protection to gays and lesbians by hiding them among heterosexuals reluctant to enter fully-fledged marriage) - as well as in Vermont and Connecticut (with Oregon next)...
The Swiss, who granted women the right to vote only in 1971 and didn't join the UN till 2002, are for once up there with those in the lead. It's a victory for pragmatism and rights. (François Brutsch)