Marriage: same sex, no difference
It’s interesting to see how many different styles of articles have been written about the same-sex marriage issue. And while a plethora of articles have been published in mainstream newspapers in support of same-sex marriage, I haven’t seen any in opposition, despite the apparent controversy.
In an SMH article, titled, Marriage: same sex, same difference, Tim Dick shows the similarities between the racist American laws against inter-racial marriage, and the Australian laws that prohibit same-sex couples to marry. He relays the story of a black woman and a white man (Mildred and Richard Loving) who were sentenced to one year’s jail in 1959 for being married. The American laws were changed in 1967. The Australian laws continue to discriminate against homosexual couples.
Dick then then offers 6 reasons why same-sex marriage should be allowed, in order for Australia to catch up with much of the developed world. These are:
1. Australia is a liberal democracy and our government doesn’t rely on religion, so we should be free to make our own decisions, as long as we don’t hurt others.
2. Marriage allows individuals to help secure social environments - families, which are beneficial for the individual and society - economically, mentally and physically.
3. Marriage would remove inequalities for gay couples, particularly in social security, immigration, tax and family law.
4. Tradition should yield to reason - marriage has long been between men and women, but that is no answer to sound reasons for change.
5. Marriage will be helped by more participants.
6. Marriage is for more than child care - the infertile and the old can marry, but not gay couples.
One of the things I’ve noticed is that most of the articles about this issue have been written by males. This opinion piece, like the article Marriage Baggage, published on SSONET.com.au, is written by a gay man, as evident in the lines: “Religions can do as they please, and if it makes people feel better that my marriage is called a civil union, let them have that euphemism. I’ll just be happy with my rights.”
Your observations are interesting, Alice. On the one hand, the nature of the issue is believed to be controversial, yet on the other, the media has fully supported same-sex marriages. Is the issue deemed controversial because the majority of the public oppose same-sex marriages (certainly a strong case in the US) and the media supports it?
James Curran, in one of his works (can’t really remember which), enumerates a number of roles the media should play. The watchdog role tends to be the main attraction in journalism, but he adds that the media should represent the public/ citizens. However, I find the latter comes into conflict with the former, and this issue does touch on your brief analysis.
Curran generalizes quite a bit and by ‘public’, of course, I understand the majority of the public. So if that majority (in a democracy) votes the Bush Administration/ Howard Government into office, the media would simply have to nod to all policies introduced if we were to follow this ‘representation’ role. So where does that leave scrutiny which then leads to accountability? Where does that leave minority views? The media watchdog role is rendered void if this principle were to be followed.
With regards to this issue, I remember a TIME columnist saying that the US elections were all about the three Gs – Guns, Gays and God. So if the majority of the population believes that Bush tackles the three Gs better than Kerry, is there still a need to scrutinize Bush, at least in the context of these issues?
This whole comment seems to be a bit naïve and psycho, I know. But to what extent should majority views be taken into consideration by journalists? I just thought that if the media adheres to its watchdog role, it would certainly have to report in isolation of the public’s views (which is the case based on your analysis). For that reason it’s labeled the fourth estate.
I always thought it was for the government to represent the public, not the media.
Comment by Chris van Opstal — January 27, 2006 @ 7:51 am