I have just come across a report of a recent NSW Supreme Court decision concerning the operation of the Surrogacy Act to two men. The two men have become the parents of a child by application of the Act.
Before commenting on the decision, and the issues generally thrown up (which are being saved for another post), there are some things to note in respect of the news coverage. Firstly, there was not much at all, which is a bit funny given that this seems to be the first application of the Act to two men. Secondly, the news was focused through a Christian lens. The stories all quoted from a statement by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) which was reported to have "condemned" the decision, or more properly the practical operation of the Act.
I suppose that a counterpoint between 'gay' and 'Christian' makes for an easy story, but to me it can too easily operate as a way of avoiding what should be treated as a serious social issue, and not an ideological battle. I would hope that the ACL people do not hold onto their views simply because they are Christian, but also because their view is the most reasonable position to take on an issue, and ought to be adopted regardless of creed. This is a theme I would like to consider more fully (again in future posts). It throws up issues like lazy journalism. It also gives occasion to wonder about the effectiveness of lobby groups like the ACL given their relative success in gaining media coverage on issues of this type. Does this have a propensity to harm one side of a debate by allowing it to be too easily caricatured as fundamentalist? Does it marginalise the issue in an unhealthy way? Anyhow, something for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment