Gay “Marriage”
Under the new Civil Partnership Act, which came into force in the UK this month, same-sex couples will be able to enjoy all the rights of heterosexual married couples, including rights in areas such as pensions, inheritance and the division of assets in case of separation. Elton John and his long-term partner David Furness were among the first 700 couples to register their relationship under the civil union scheme (SMH 21/12/05).
However, the new system doesn’t recognise registered same-sex relationships as real marriages, unlike in Belgium, Spain and Canada.
Despite the fact that this is UK news, The Herald’s coverage of the lead up to the implementation of the legislation and the subsequent “marriages” has been broad and extensive. They’ve covered everything from the legal/social factors surrounding the legislation, to the more personal side by focusing on same-sex couples who are taking advantage of the scheme (both celeb & ordinary unknown couples). See article on Elton John & partner, George Micheal & partner, Christopher Flangan & partner Henry Kane, as well as females Grainne Close and partner Shannon Sickels. The Herald has also covered the impact the UK legislation has had on the gay community in Australia.
Under Australian federal law, same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying, however limited recognition was given to same-sex couples by most state and territory governments. So now, as expected, gay activists are urging Australia to introduce a similar national civil union scheme for gay relationships (SMH 21/12/05).
Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE) spokesman Rod Swift said Australia was increasingly out of step, with same-sex civil unions or marriage possible in many countries including NZ, South Africa, countries across Western Europe, several US states, and now the UK.
Certification of any de facto relationship is crucial in diverse issues such as child custody, superannuation death benefits, passport applications and during medical emergencies. Gay couples deserve the same property, pension, immigration, tax and inheritance rights as married heterosexuals.
Unsurprisingly, this Herald article seems sympathetic to the plight of Australian same-sex couples who seek formal recognition of their relationships. It presents the views of gay activists and doesn’t balance these with contrasting views about why gay marriage should not be allowed - I’d say these would be harder to find and would predictably come from religious groups. But nevertheless, I’d like to hear opponents try to make rational and convincing arguments.
So, it seems that the Herald is using the UK legislation to set the agenda on the rights of same-sex couples.
On the other hand, the Telegraph has given limited coverage to the issue - it only published one article on this issue. This article took an angle the Herald never took - it told the story of a terminally ill gay British man (Matthew Roche), with only days to live, who became one of the first to take advantage of the new law. The article ends with a quote from Roche: “We’re very lucky to live in Britain. I cannot think of a more tolerant place to live”.
Like in the Herald, the Telegraph article presents the UK legislation as positive, and it doesn’t present any opposing or negative views.
The Sydney Star Observer published a report on the legislation, though it didn’t seem to give it as much coverage as the Herald did either. However, as a gay publication, the SSO gives regular and extensive coverage to issues related to gay marriage around the world. See articles on gay marriage issues in Tasmania, Canada, the US and Spain.
