Accentuating The Positive
In another of her enthralling dissertations about life in The Lodge Lucy reveals how she gained the inspiration for her innovative plan to save Malcolm from a ‘NO’ vote.
“I’m a bit worried about the gay marriage plebiscite” I remarked to Malcolm over a post-prandial brandy last week.
“I wouldn’t worry Luce” commented Malcolm in a rather desultory sort of way “it seems to be going ok”
“But I think you may have got the question the wrong way round” I opined
“Surely” responded Malcolm patiently “you don’t mean we should have asked people whether they were were in favour of achieving marriage quality by banning the heterosexual variety”
“What I mean” I stated emphatically “is that history shows people prefer to vote ‘NO’ in a plebiscite rather than ‘YES’. So if you wanted to fix things so that gay marriage got approved you should have asked ‘Should gay people be denied the right to marry?’”
“That’s an interesting point Luce” conceded Malcolm “because it would oblige Tony to vote ‘YES’ and he’s never done that in his life”
“The real nub of my concern” I confided “is the enormous fallout that would follow a ‘NO’ vote win in this plebiscite”
“I see what you mean” said Malcolm pensively “the ABC would find it impossible to be fair and balanced about the result and Tony would claim all the credit and demand a spill”
“And Blackout Bill would blame Australia Post and also you for putting your stamp on it” I pointed out
“Yes I can see the dangers” declared Malcolm “and if the people voted ‘NO’ and then parliament voted ‘YES” the whole country could become divorced from gay marriage. That could be serious”
It’s at moments like these, as my memoirs will one day reveal to a grateful nation, that I am inspired to make truly historic contributions to Malcolm’s prime ministership.
“Look Mal” I declared “if the plebiscite results in a ‘NO’ triumph you have to take immediate decisive action”
“I’m only too well aware of that” said Malcolm impatiently “but what exactly?”
“You simply follow the Airbnb and Uber trend and introduce disruption to marriage” I revealed “couples would simply apply for marriage online and pay a joining fee”
“But” exclaimed Mal emphatically “it still wouldn’t be legal for two men or two women to marry”
“Look” I said patiently “it’s all quite simple really. It’s normal for one of the participants to have a name-change on getting married so just like a woman in a heterosexual marriage taking her husband’s name a man in a gay marriage could adopt his mother’s Christian name and a woman could adopt her father’s Christian name. As it’s happening online no-one would be any the wiser”
“But would that constitute genuine gay marriage?” asked Malcolm
“Well” I replied “it would probably be gender neutral marriage”