Gay olde prejudice

Behind Joseph Mizzi's objection to terms like "gay marriage" and "gay family" (July 13) lies a myriad of prejudice. He does not present any premise to prop up his statement that a homosexual union should be so intrinsically different so as to not deserve to be called marriage. It is most evident that what he takes issue to is not the terms used but the right for gay men and women to be equal before the law.

Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, they and their families have no access to a number of protections and responsibilities that married heterosexual couples take for granted. Take, for example, the right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Cases arise of gays with a life partner of many years, forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he or she may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

Other laws concern the right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate, the right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a break-up, the right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will and the right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job. All this, not to mention family-related social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans' benefits and other important benefits.

What this means to gay couples and gay families is higher health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension or social security benefits in the event of a partner's death.

It will only be a matter of time before most governments will realise that the right to a civil union for partners of the same sex is an equal rights issue.