Two Victorian women are hoping for their first baby, but even though they are both fertile, they can't get pregnant.
One woman can't conceive because her husband is infertile - but there is some hope for her, legally.
She can get donor insemination treatment.
The other woman can't get pregnant in Victoria because she doesn't have a male partner.
And under our state law, she will be turned away from all fertility services.
The only real difference between the women is their marital status.
When I first read this, I was struck by the difference in the way Dr Szoke conceives reality. Family relationships are insignificant to her. A difference in marital status means nothing to her, even in terms of a woman bringing a child into the world with or without a father.
Dr Szoke is the CEO of the Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission - in other words, an important officer of the state. Her way of thinking illustrates just how distorted a philosophy of non-discrimination can be. She writes:
Lifting the ban on fertility services for single women ... will remove discrimination ... It is a shame that in the 21st century we still discriminate against people on the basis of their marital status ...
So it's now considered discriminatory to expect that a woman might partner with a man in order to have a child.
It's necessary to insist here that some forms of discrimination are reasonable. It is reasonable to expect that a woman will partner with a man in order to have a child.
In doing so, a child is brought into the world with a father.
Dr Szoke disagrees and believes that we all have a "right" to have our wants met by the state and that any denial of this right amounts to shameful discrimination.
But look at what is required to follow such a principle - Dr Szoke has to trivialise and disregard important human relationships to make the principle work. To blot out the real consequences of her anti-discrimination principle, there are certain rooms of thought that have to be left empty.