“Even though the scene feels nice for future bridal couples, we can’t disregard what it symbolises: a father handing over a minor virgin to her new guardian.”

This seems like a silly thing to get hung up on when the bride isn’t a minor (and perhaps not a woman) and can choose who they walk down the aisle with. The article even mentions that some choose to walk with their mother, and likely there are others who walk with other important friends or family members. I’ve never cared too much about wedding ceremonies, but I know that walking down the aisle can be a really important and symbolic thing for the bride and the person they walk with. Seems like taking that choice away is more restrictive to women than, you know, letting the woman decide for herself.

While I agree that the act could be interpreted as an symbol of inequality, I really think personal choice should be the winner here.

Oh, banned by the swedish church within it’s own facilities, not banned by law in the country. That makes much more sense

The relationship between Christianity and politics in Sweden is quite different than the one in the Anglosphere. In Sweden, if you’re a member of the Swedish (Lutheran) church, you pay a small amount of extra tax, which goes to the church, but get to vote in church elections every few years. In the most recent elections, the left (who ran on a platform of using the church’s resources to help the underprivileged) defeated the right (who ran on a platform of culture-war traditionalism) by a hefty margin.

Of all the insignificant, immaterial, inconsequential things to be bitching about.

Wouldn’t be an issue if Sweden had a culture worth a shit