It's not entirely clear how, in a story about the first marriage in Cuba of a gay man to a transsexual woman, it's relevant to mention that the man has AIDS. It could be relevant, if it were relevant to the story - not to be too circular in my logic - but the Reuters reporter makes no effort to make it relevant. He simply mentions it as an aside, as if it's of course relevant that the marriage includes a gay guy and AIDS is involved. Check out this line:
Check out the context:
Estrada, decked out in a white suit and red tie and arriving separately in a white Mercedes, said he was also happy and nervous, but that the day's importance extended beyond him and his bride. "This is a step forward for the gay community in Cuba," he said.It's an interesting, and otherwise good, story. But that "who has AIDS" thing just strikes me as oddly gratuitous. It's just not relevant unless you explain why it's relevant. For example, in the stories we been posting about the gay married couple about to be broken apart by the Obama administration (they're deporting the foreign-born husband, and they're claiming (falsely) that DOMA is making them do it), it's relevant that the American husband has AIDS, as the soon-to-be deportee is his sole caregiver, and the story notes that.
The couple met three months ago and fell in love, said Estrada, who has AIDS.
After the ceremony, they had their photographs taken in front of a two-tiered wedding cake, kissed again and then followed Cuban tradition by riding through the streets in a convertible, the horn blaring a few notes of wedding music.
It's fine to mention, but make it relevant. Otherwise don't.
