Australian newspapers are almost exclusively in support of a “yes” vote in the same sex marriage postal survey.
Of the 11 daily metropolitan and nationals newspapers in the country, eight have published editorials since the postal survey was announced that are explicitly in favour of a “yes” response in the ballot. The Australian is the only newspaper to editorialise that it “cannot endorse such a proposal sight unseen”.
The NT News was first off the bat, dedicating its front page to the topic on August 9, the day after the postal plebiscite was announced. It ran the results of a poll showing most Territorians were in favour of legalising same-sex marriage, as well as an editorial saying that the majority of Australians supported it and lamenting the cost of a survey.
Hobart’s The Mercury followed the next day, referring to a series of editorials it ran last year in support of same-sex marriage, saying, “it is a vital move to end discrimination against same-sex couples”.
News Corp’s Daily Telegraph and The Advertiser both came down on the “yes” side in mid-September, and the Courier-Mail and the Herald Sun published editorials encouraging readers to vote “yes” in the ballot last week.
At Fairfax, The Sydney Morning Herald made its view known in Saturday’s paper, under the headline, “Why ‘yes’ deserves to win”. In Melbourne, The Age did the same on September 7, saying, “there is no justification for denying the right of two consenting adults in love to get married”. Sister paper, The Sunday Age, made the same declaration on its front page a few days later.
The Sunday Age and the NT News are the only two major daily papers to have made their declarations in bold front pages.
The Australian Financial Review‘s leader writer Luke Malpass told Crikey the paper’s general position was to support the “yes” case, but without urging readers to vote one way or the other. “We also suggest that those making the ‘yes’ case should take religious and some of the other objections to the change more seriously,” he said. The Fin first editorialised on the issue in 2015, saying, “In the end, the freedom of adults to decide should trump the other considerations, and gay marriage should be given cautious support.”
The West Australian did not respond to Crikey‘s request for comment, and does not appear to have editorialised specifically urging a “yes” or “no” vote from its readers.
Ah the NewCrap Australian, what can you say? I know don’t buy a crappy product.
Why do the words of Samuel Clemens ring in my skull, “when you agree with the majority, it might be time to reconsider”?
I’m only voting YES to poke the uglies in the eye – I don’t like the idea of any marriage, for anyone, anymore than the idea of priests, female or male.
Fortunately, like its State-level civil union equivalent, marriage will not be compulsory.
The Australian’s position is totally contradictory. A few years ago they editorialised in favour of gay marriage, despite no legislation having been out forward. Now under ultra-conservative editor Paul Whittaker, they suddenly must see legislation before endorsing a yes vote. Sad.
We all know the the Australian is really a US paper full of fake fox stories. Now if only Basil Brush was in charge of the henhouse instead of Rupert Rodent.