Alice Blogs Gender & Sexuality

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.”

As I’ve been monitoring media coverage of push for same-sex “marriage” to be legally recognised in Oz, I’ve noticed the regular use of the word ‘partner‘ to describe each half of a same-sex couple. Partner is commonly used nowadays by people in both hetereosexual and homosexual relationships, in place of girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/lover. However, I don’t think this became conventional until recently, say in the last 2 or so decades, as homosexual relationships started becoming more socially acceptable.

People, and particularly homosexuals, started using the word partner rather than having to distinguish their sexuality when talking to anyone with no business in knowing.

The media may have propogated the use of the term partner - it’s a convenient term with little connotations, and can be applied to almost any couple, whether they be married, de factos, sexual partners or even business partners. It doesn’t imply the sexual nature of a relationship, or the level of seriousness.

The Herald uses the regularly uses the word to describe people in same-sex relationships. In a Sun Herald article published today, titled Home is where the hearts should be joined, the word partner is used to describe people in 3 different same-sex relationships. On the other hand, it uses the word girlfriend to describe the woman in a heterosexual relationship.

Sydney Star Observer, a publication primarily concerned with issues the effect the gay and lesbian community, also uses the word partner regularly to describe people in same-sex couples.

To continue on the issue of the push to legalise same-sex “marriage” in Australia….there’s an interesting and detailed opinion piece titled, Marriage Baggage, was published on Sydney Star Observer Net (www.SSONET.com.au). It’s written by Steve Dow, one half of a devoted homosexual couple. As well as stating the practical reasons that same-sex partnerships should be able to be registered, he also writes about the “bigger picture” of “commitment and love”.

Dow writes, in narrative style, about his relationship with his partner, also named Steve. It’s a very personal account of how the couple met over 6 years ago. It’s written in a very flamoboyant style and expresses a kind of stereotypical gay, “camp” feeling:

“He’d seen me some weeks earlier, marching up and down Peel Street, preparing for the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, torso exposed with fairy wings strapped to my back, a little white wrap around my butt. A Melbourne Marching Boy in miniature. Somehow, he was able to resist approaching me at that point.”

Such details seem quite irrelevant for the point he’s making, but it certainly makes for an interesting read.

He writes of his brother’s relationship with his wife, in order to make a contrast with same-sex relationships - which I thought was an interesting technique since he’s basically arguing that both types of couples should be viewed similarly under the law, and enjoy the same rights.

He also writes of gay friends tying the knot around the world - in countries that do allow for same-sex civil unions.

He weaves facts about the laws re same-sex marriage around the world, throughout his narrative of personal accounts.

He makes an interesting point - and I guess the fact that he is a gay man, writing about this gay issue, gives him a kind of authority to make generalised points about gay couples - he writes:

“Among some gay people…marriage is viewed suspiciously as a conservative tradition, the franchise’s aims of monogamy and associated social strictures at odds with long-fought lifestyle freedoms, though this view is changing: as the overseas experience shows what’s possible, suddenly the options open to others become objects of desire.”

He makes another interesting point, stating that the moral panic about same-sex marriage is that it would weaken heterosexual marriage, and comments that it’s already too late due to such high divorce rates. Even if this is an argument against same-sex marriage, I don’t think its opponents (eg. John Howard) would admit it.

This article is very different to those published in Australian newspapers, such as the Herald, on the same issue. And I guess this is mostly due to the fact that it’s written by a gay man in a gay relationship, who thus has more authority than say, a heterosexual man, writing his opinions on the issue. He has a real involvement and investment in the issue as it’s affecting his life with his partner directly.

See SOIN - Sexual Orientation Issues in the News for an interesting article about whether homosexual journalists should cover the same-sex marriage issue, and attitudes on the broader question of ‘What disqualifies a journalist from covering a story?’.

Australia’s mainstream newspapers have continued to give extensive coverage of updates regarding the “gay marriage” legislation passed in England. It’s interestring to see how an issue that arose in another country can become an Australian issue if it gains media attention.

Online News Limited (www.news.com.au) published a story titled, Defiant Liberals urge gay unions, about how some Liberal backbenchers are pushing for Australia to follow Britain’s lead.

The article presents quotes from some of the backbenchers supporting gay unions - Warren Entsch said: “I would be a hypocrite if I said those people have less of an entitlement than I would”. Judi Moylan said: “It’s a matter of fair and equitable treatment of people”, and Petro Georgiou said gay men and lesbians deserved recognition: “People in relationships should be treated equally regardless of gender”.

These comments supporting gay unions were not balanced by any quotes from anyone opposing gay unions, despite the fact that the article states that John Howard opposes gay unions, as he believes that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, and that Labor opposes them also. I find this surprising - that Liberal backbenchers are supporting a change while Labor opposes it. Hopefully their campaign will have some success! It seems we are really behind so many countries in regards to this issue!

The article also includes ABS stats, which conlude that the number of same-sex-couple households doubled from 10,000 to 20,000 from 1996 to 2001, reflecting an increasing inclination among homosexual couples to declare their status. This statement conveys a need to recognise the civil rights of a fairly large and growing proportion of our population.

SMH published a news story titled Elton John’s ‘marriage’ certificate released. It’s a fairly mundane article and doesn’t seem to be particularly ‘news worthy’ to me, especially since the Herald published a few articles about the fact that Elton John and his partner would be tying the knot, in the lead up to their ‘marriage’. So, I think the fact that the Herald published this story shows that they are trying to bring this issue to the public’s attention and set the agenda for public and political debate.

An article about the push to legalise gay marriage in Australia was published the following day in the Sun Herald. It states that “gay rights activists will seize on Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (to be held in March 2006) to push for legal recognition of same-sex marriages.”

This article also seems to present a fairly strong case for the support of same-sex civil unions, including effective quotes from various supporters, and none from the opposition. It ends with the line “They (same-sex couples) also want the right to publicly celebrate their love and commitment”. which, to me, sounds positive and expresses no negative connotations.

I’ll continue to monitor the media’s coverage of this issue, but I should start focusing on more alternative publications….

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.