Finnish MP Battling Six-Year “Hate Speech” Case Considers Leaving Church Over Same-Sex Marriage Shift

Finnish freedom fighter, Päivi Räsänen, is still staring down the barrel of “hate speech” LGBTQ+ lawfare.

Now in its 6^th year, the court case over a Twitter post quoting Paul’s letter to the Romans continues to be a frontline for free speech.

Fed up with the continual downgrade of the Finnish Lutheran Church’s (EVL) commitment to the Gospel in exchange for a union with the LGBT, Räsänen says she is now prepared to leave the church.

Writing in a recent column for Uusi Tie, Räsänen named dissident Bishop of Lapua, Matti Salomäki, as the catalyst.

Once ardently steadfast in opposing the church adopting, affirming, and assimilating Same-Sex marriage, Salomäki seems to have surrendered, she explained.

“In a way,” for her, “this is the final nail in the coffin.

“The last episcopal stronghold has been broken, in what is the culmination of ecclesiastical anarchy,” Räsänen remarked.

“Instructions on marriage that are contrary to the teachings of the Church Council and the Bible are now also being implemented in Central, South, and North Ostrobothnia.” 

Specifically, Salomäki’s diocese of Lapua, also known as Finland’s Bible belt, an area rich in Christian values and home to Finnish Christian revivalist movements which date back to the 1700s.

“Church premises,” Räsänen said, “were ordered to be opened for same-sex weddings, and the celebration of communion in the premises of the revival movement was even prohibited.”

A letter to clergy published by Bishop Salomäki in June unpacked the dictate.

Even though assimilating SSM into Church practice was rejected in 2024, a June 2025 meeting of Finnish Bishops issued new “pastoral instructions on meeting same-sex couples requesting marriage or blessing in parish work,’ he said.

All previous instructions and guidelines must now be discarded, because “the situation regarding marriage ceremonies, the blessing of marriage and the use of premises has changed.”

Trying to reassure Finland’s parishioners, Salomäki asserted that EVL’s understanding of marriage still asserts the man for woman, woman for man union, and holds that this is the basis for a family.

Marrying homosexuals would now be a matter of “pastoral consideration,” which isn’t being mandated, just strongly encouraged.

“Personally,” he concluded, “I hope that priests will continue to act in accordance with the church’s current view of marriage.”

EVL’s new guidelines steer the Finnish state church towards two parallel positions on marriage, which would add “two-person unions” to the definition of marriage. 

Defending the dictate, Archbishop Tapio Luoma exclaimed that “a church wedding and the blessing of God are of great importance to ALL couples getting married.”

“We must,” Luoma added, “be able to find a solution to the marriage dispute that does not compromise our unity and allows everyone to be treated as ‘equals.’”

Archbishop Luoma made no mention of the Gospel, freedom of speech, children’s rights or holding fast to the Truth, despite the falsehoods of LGBTQ+ critical theory.

Signalling these as reasons for her pending departure from EVL, Räsänen said, “I probably won’t be paying the [optional] church tax next year.

“Could the church be like the prodigal son, who, having squandered his inheritance, repents and returns to be renewed?

“Or do we need a new community that truly continues the confessional church that our national church has lost?”

To this, she added, “I’m praying for wisdom and the right moment to make a decision.”

Calling the attacks on Räsänen a “growing trend,” Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADFIntl) slammed the “weaponisation of vague and subjective hate speech laws.” 

The LGBTQ+ disagreement-is-hate political persecution of Räsänen “extends far beyond Finland.”

If she is convicted on appeal – after already being acquitted – “it would mark a dangerous shift towards state control over individual freedoms,” they added.

ADFIntl have rightly described Räsänen’s 6-year-long debate-is-hate case as an “assault on freedom of expression.”