Children Are Pets, Gays Are Paris Hilton & Pictures of Two Awesome Ladies

This week my faith in Australian politics was shattered and restored in one fell swoop, so I guess I'm really just back where I began. As you may be aware, altruistic surrogacy was made legal in Queensland... the last Australian state to do so. And this is a wonderful thing, because not only has it been legalized, but it's been legalized without amendments to exclude same-sex couples or single parents. I wanted to weight in on the topic, though I will never be able to talk politics with the same intelligence, humor, appeal or pure awesomeness of the likes of Rachel Maddow (who has nothing to do with this topic except that she's my favorite person in the world at the moment).

In and of itself, this is a great thing, I believe, but it was inevitable that this would spark controversy. Adding fuel to the fire was the opposition stating that they would whole-heartedly support the bill if it excluded same-sex couples and single parents, backed by many Christian and religious groups. Indeed, during the bill's debate the comments it elicited were completely laughable. One opposition member made a statement to the effect of gay couples viewing children as "pets" and status symbols, and that lesbians or single mothers could not possibly raise a son because they would not be able to take them into a male public bathroom. There was another suggestion that allowing surrogacy would result in another "Lost Generation" and a future reconciliation process when we realize the error of our evil left-wing ways.

It perplexes me that these are the arguments that surfaced. I was raised - very well and lovingly, I might add - by two parents, a man and a woman, and until I was old enough to go to a public bathroom myself, my mother took me into the women's bathroom or my father took me to the men's bathroom, and so it was for all the boys my age at shopping centers, cinemas, department stores, or any public place. Using a public bathroom was really not a serious component of my development, at least, not beyond the early realization that public bathrooms are revolting and that I should avoid using them at any cost (perhaps then it's a godsend that a lesbian couple's son would never be able to endure the horror...).The fact that the people who made these comments would perhaps be the first to throw their arms up about predators or pedophiles should the boy be taken into the men's bathroom anyway makes the statement even more amusing.

Further more, I seriously doubt that any couple or adult would be willing to go through the financial, emotional and legal hassles of arranging a surrogacy (or adoption or IVF for that matter) if they did not want to truly, desperately be parents and provide a loving home.  If the gays really wanted a fancy pet, wouldn't they just get, uh, I don't know... a... pet? Like a dog or something? And anyone under the illusion that surrogacy would be a completely unregulated process are insane. I also think they seem to miss the fact that quite often the surrogate mother is not the child's biological mother anyway. The fact that commercial surrogacy is still illegal means that the chance of the surrogate being a complete stranger who decides to lend out her womb is going to be pretty slim to none. So, who other than a family member or dear friend is likely to offer to carry your child without demands of recompense? Combine the likelihood that a) the child is biologically the commissioning parents' and b) the surrogate is a loved and trusted friend or family member and I'm left wondering how a second "Lost Generation" fits in there.

It all gives me a headache that these are the conclusions state politicians have drawn because these people are running this country. I'm by no means saying that if they disagree with this bill they're "rednecks" or "bigots", as they seem to have been labeled by the Labor party (which, mind you, are equally disappointing actions on their part). In fact, I have great respect for the Labor members who crossed the floor against the bill, for they did so without resorting to ignorant or inflammatory jibes, but merely stated it was a matter of conscience. It was an incredibly brave thing to do, as crossing the floor seems so frowned upon in Australian politics. And yet I can't help but be reminded of one of the best quips about people who oppose gay marriage - "If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay". If you're against surrogacy, don't have someone else birth your baby.

Perhaps I'm naive, but at the end of the day, I understand that democracy is a case of "best for most, not for all". It's impossible to please everyone, but the government is there to represent the people and "the people" aren't going to agree on everything, so it can only do what they determine is best in response to what the majority demands. I think by now this should be a concept that Australian's can just accept with out Christians and conservatives being denounced as bigoted rednecks and without secular liberals labeled evil radicals.

In a podcast by the Gay Christian Network that I listened to a while ago, the founder, Justin Lee was speaking about gay marriage and he referred to an essay by C.S. Lewis which he'd written about divorce. Now, I haven't read this myself, so I'm open to corrections or additions for accuracy, but I'm sure I got the gist. He stated that as a Christian, he was opposed to divorce. But, it was not for Christians to deny the wider society access to divorce. Whether it was legal for the masses or not, Christians must defer to the morals of their faith within the broader laws of the country. And so it is with surrogacy.

Church and state are separate, and for very good reason, and this seems to be a point that Australia has such a struggle coming to terms with. I understand that our country has a strong Christian heritage, and these historical remnants are going to come up often such as the recitation of the Lord's prayer at the sitting of Parliament. But without this segregation, we would not have religious freedom and could we really then lay claim to being a "multicultural" nation? The point is, the law should not be determined by Christian morality or any other religious morality for that matter, but rather, should instead have a greater reach with a broader, secular morality. It is within this morality that individuals may apply their own religious or personal moral code, Christian or not, and I believe that the passing of the surrogacy bill - after all the bickering and name-calling is done - is a testament to this.