Forget a plebiscite, let's have a dance-off for gay marriage.

Winston Churchill famously said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried”.

Need proof? I present the proposed plebiscite on gay marriage.

Malcolm Turnbull and the decent humans of the Liberal party, led by Warren Entsch, have spent the last day constricting themselves into ever more convoluted and tighter coils trying to wiggle out of their party’s absurd position on gay marriage.

Under Abbott there would be a plebiscite after the next election and then legislation depending on the result. The new proposal is for parliament to pass laws that will only come into force if the plebiscite succeeds.

Frankly I’d rather have the issue resolved through a dance-off. Let both sides express their position through interpretative dance and see who bloody wins.

While the result of the dance-off will be the same as the plebiscite (the gays will win) at least we’ll get to witness some almighty ass-shaking. Because a plebiscite on gay marriage, like a reluctant wrist job, satisfies no one. The main function of a plebiscite, given nearly 70% of the population support gay marriage, will be to spend $140 million giving a megaphone to people who despise homosexuality, as Bill Shorten, quite eloquently pointed out today. And when Bill’s being eloquent, you know something’s wrong.

“A plebiscite could act as a lightning rod for the very worst of the prejudice so many LGBTI Australians endure,” he said.

Yep. But, if we have to have a plebiscite, I’ve got a modest proposal of my own I’d like considered. An important part of the logic of the homophobe lobby is that gay people have made a “lifestyle choice”, and that requiring the rest of society to recognise and respect that “choice” is oppressive.

Never mind that the best scientific minds who’ve studied the causes of homosexuality universally agree that, whatever the precise cause (and there’s debate about whether genetics, hormonal conditions inside the mother’s womb, or the conditions in which a child is raised have a bigger impact) there’s no element of choice.

Of course we all make lifestyle choices. We choose the music we listen to, the clothes we wear, the hairstyle we adopt, the dog we buy, our religion, our life philosophy and politics, the car we drive, and much, much more. And sometimes those choices have social consequences. We get bullied, ostracised, fired, misrepresented, sometimes arrested, and sometimes killed.

But of these “lifestyle choices”, only one is illegal in 79 countries, and punishable with death in 5 of them. Homosexuality.

That’s 2.7 billion people who live in countries where the one “lifestyle choice” that’s not a choice is illegal. Given that, the whole idea that anyone would choose to be gay is mad. Don’t get me wrong, I love who I am. Things are swell.

But I’ve spent my entire life in a country where I can’t adopt children, can’t marry, and where I’m much more likely to experience violence purely because of my sexuality. And Australia’s a country where it’s pretty good to be gay. Do you seriously think men and women in Syria, Iran, Uganda and so on, would choose to be gay if not being executed were a serious alternative?

So if we’re going to have a plebiscite on my right to marry, then the gay community deserves the right to veto, on a personal basis, heterosexual marriages, after all I believe it’s the Bible that says “judge not, lest you be judged” (Matthew 7:1).

I propose the creation of a Rainbow Council and that all straight marriages be submitted to this council before they can be recognised as legal. I’d suggest Magda Szubanski, Matthew Mitcham, Justice Michael Kirby, and Kylie Minogue (she’s not a lesbian, but she counts as three gay man) as a starting point.

The regulations of the Rainbow Council would consist of a series of simple interviews conducted by members of the Rainbow Force (the fabulous enforcement arm of the Council):

The questionnaire would be simple:

• Are you planning on playing Shannon Noll at the wedding?
• Will you be using a selfie stick while walking down the aisle?
• Do you live in the inner-city, yet own a 4-wheel-drive for those occasional country jaunts?
• Is paleo less of a diet and more of a way of life to you?
• Have you ever done bikram yoga?
• If yes, did you then go to a cafe in the same active wear?
• Did you name your child using a noun, verb or punctuation?

Of course, I can’t possibly compile this list on my own, so feel free to contribute suggestions in the comments section. I’ll submit them to the Prime Minister to be included in the plebiscite as alternate reasons why people should be denied the right to marry.

Winston Churchill was once heckled while delivering a speech. The heckler accused him of being drunk. Churchill responded: “I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning, I will be sober and you will still be ugly.”

The views of those who oppose gay marriage are fundamentally ugly.  They will be ugly during the debate on a plebiscite, and afterwards, whatever the result. The Australian people have soberly assessed what they think and overwhelmingly support gay marriage.

Otherwise let’s see whether we prove Churchill wrong and find out that a danceocracy is superior to democracy, because if our leaders can’t vote on something like this, perhaps they can at least be relied upon to boogie.