The Lens: South Korea high court recognises legal status of same-sex couple in historic ruling

Reuters and Yanni Chow

A South Korean court last Tuesday recognised spousal coverage by state health insurance for a same-sex couple, overturning a lower court’s ruling that denied the benefits.

The new ruling from the Seoul High Court is its “first recognition of the legal status of a same-sex couple”, said lawyer Ryu Min-hee, part of a team of lawyers that represented the plaintiff.

South Korea does not legally recognise same-sex marriage.

The plaintiff, So Sung-wook, filed the lawsuit against the National Health Insurance Service in 2021 after the insurer denied him spousal benefits despite granting similar rights to other common law couples – couples in a committed partnership who might not be legally married.

A lower court had said a same-sex union cannot be considered a common law marriage under the country’s current laws and ruled in favour of the insurer.

According to Ryu, the appellate court said spousal coverage was not just for families as defined by law, and not granting the right to people in same-sex relationships amounted to discrimination.

Protecting minority rights is the court’s “biggest responsibility”, it wrote in its judgment.

“Everyone can be a minority in some way. In a society dominated by the principle of majority rule, awareness of the rights of minorities and efforts to protect them are necessary.”

So praised the court for seeing “the principle of equality as an important issue”.

“I think it has a great meaning for LGBTQ people who have been in a discriminatory situation, those who support them and all those who are discriminated against,” he told the BBC.

“This is an important decision that moves South Korea closer to achieving marriage equality,” Amnesty International’s East Asia researcher Boram Jang said.

• What did the court judgment mean when it said “everyone can be a minority in some way?”

• To what extent do you agree with the court’s decision and why?

Chloe Kwok, Heep Yunn School

Before diving into the reasons art can be controversial, we need to understand the function of art in activism and social justice. Art is more than just paintings and sculptures; it serves as the artist’s voice on social and political issues.

Art can enable its creator to raise important questions and start debates.

For instance, Guernica, a painting by Picasso, conveys an anti-war message by depicting the horrors of the Spanish Civil War and asks the viewer: can the world really achieve peace through violence?

British street artist Banksy has always been political, and his work is full of social commentary. He has used his art to speak out against consumerism, classism, greed, and more.

In my opinion, people are concerned about Banksy’s latest piece because he uses a unique approach to address gender violence. Without further explanation, some people could distort and misinterpret the piece’s message and use it to spread hatred against women.

Moreover, Banksy’s murals can disturb the communities they appear in. According to British news outlet The Guardian, many people have attempted to steal or destroy Banksy’s murals since they first appeared. Furthermore, Banksy has repeatedly been in trouble with local councils for defacing public property.

Despite all the controversies, Banksy has achieved what he wanted with “Valentine’s Day Mascara”, raising awareness about violence against women.

The Lens: New Banksy mural ‘Valentine’s Day Mascara’ revealed in small English town