Perhaps you’ve heard something about a current national vote. You know the one. In media, it generates “respectful debate”—and, no, I’m not sure what that means, either. But I do know that it sounds rather like the noise a party of sugar-fuelled toddlers would make while playing unsupervised at a firing range. Anyhow. Whatever our divided positions on this plebiscite—which it isn’t, actually. It’s a non-binding, non-compulsory mail survey—there’s one opinion we are quite likely to share. To wit, what a load of expensive bother.
There are plenty of policy matters about which we may hold strong views. You may feel strongly about same-sex marriage. You may strongly believe this matter is way down on the list of national priorities. Either way, you may be surprised to find that your opinion is being sought in this case, when it is not in all those others.
Frankly, I’m not just surprised, but plain irritated. This is for several reasons. Well, just one really, if we don’t count (a) that the government is not legally obliged to respond to either a resounding “yes” or firm “no” from the Australian people and (b) that there is a family of particularly nasty magpies near my closest Australia Post box, and it’s swooping season. I am irritated because I see how this process could be a lot more fun.
It’s a non-binding, non-compulsory mail survey—there’s one opinion we are quite likely to share. To wit, what a load of expensive bother.
There is nothing “fun” about voting for these changes to law. Again, whatever your voting intention, you can probably agree that our marriage debate has been about as joyful and costly as a high-end divorce. I mean. To say. Nothing but unpleasantness could ever come from a “respectful debate” that has the topic of intimate relationships at its centre. People were always going to get cross. Some of them, I fear, may suffer emotional injury. I speak here not only of those persecuted in our LGBTIQA community, but the most avid campaigners for “no”. A lot of those guys seem very upset. I saw one on telly who looked like there was just a single “Jesus Hates You” placard between him and a long period of medical leave. He was taking it all rather personally.
I don’t like to think that any of my fellows are in unnecessary pain. Especially, when we could press the Australian Bureau of Statistics into the service of national delight. If we’re going to answer a question the government is not obliged to hear, let’s make that question fun.
I am irritated because I see how this process could be a lot more fun.
Here’s one that might work: “Do you support the imposition of Casual Friday dress rules on all Federal politicians?” Imagine the amusing campaign. Who would not wish to see Julie Bishop and Penny Wong—in my view, our two most stylish parliamentarians—arguing from across the bench for “no”? They’d seek letters of support for careful dress from the planet’s leading designers, and so, of course, would PM Malcolm. Sam Dastyari, who has never looked comfy in a suit, would join in “yes” with Pauline Hanson, who has long preferred fast fashions to the slow grace of Armani. For possibly the first time, Senator Hanson would find comfort in the company of a man who was raised a Muslim. And then, Dame Edna would return to her home to vote “no” for a laugh and Iggy Azalea would also appear to support “yes”, but then try to amend the question to be “yes, but only if all yall wear Yeezy trainers and a mad bra-lette”.
And we could yell at our neighbours no matter their cultural distance or closeness to us about something that’s just a big joke. All of the passion, none of the harm. I’m really warming to this idea.
Another question could be “Do you sleep with your dog on the bed?” We’d find a surprising division of opinion among our celebrity vets. Oh. Let’s do it every year. We could have, “Do You Support the Right of Toilet Rolls to Be Always Be Placed With the End Facing Out” or “Do you think people who refrigerate all of their condiments are just plain weird?” Perhaps just a simple “Does My Bum Look Big in This?” when we’ve really absorbed the spirit of the thing.
Sometimes, I think, we get so frustrated with the business of life, we need to let off steam. So many campaigners in this current survey seem to have great need to vent. Personal irritation can find its nearest expression and we can end up getting very angry at the wrong things. Heck. Apparently, we can even get angry at people who crave to try something as conservative as state-sanctioned marriage.
Oh. Let’s do it every year. We could have, “Do You Support the Right of Toilet Rolls to Be Always Be Placed With the End Facing Out” or “Do you think people who refrigerate all of their condiments are just plain weird?”
There are, of course, many forces toward which we could, even should, feel anger. Let’s spend the rest of the year deciding what those are for each of us. And then, once every springtime, we rise up as one fiercely disagreeing population, feeling harmony as we argue for or against the morality of couples who snog on public transport.
