Jinn of Current Events

A guard at the security check in Delhi airport had a momentary freeze as he took a magazine from my hand, stared at the cover, opened it slowly, and carefully looked at the inside pages (luckily, he decided that it was not a dangerous item for the flight). What was so arresting? The Economist of 2004-Feb-28 had a wonderful cover picture (two very happy men) and shouted The case for gay marriage, arguing that it rests on equality, liberty, and social cohesion. They first published an editorial in Januray of 1996 calling out Let them wed.

The institution of marriage is rooted in many cultural traditions and social conventions, and in some parts of the world remains a rather primitive affair (e.g. girls given away against their consent or interests, families incurring large debts for the dowry of their children, matches determined by feudal constraints or racial considerations). The historical roots of marriage cannot be used as the standard of justice and freedom. The modern, romantic interpretation has focused on its essential characteristics of celebrating, sanctioning, and upholding the desire of two people to affirm their love, bind their lives together, and enjoy the protection of society.

Since sexual orientation, i.e. homosexuality or heterosexuality, is mostly accepted as a politically free, individual attribute in modern societies, it is logical to let marriage be a free choice too. Who can justly claim to have the power to stop people from being in love, wanting to live together, and seeking a contractual celebration of their unique relationship? In some parts of the world it used to be forbidden to get married across skin colours for instance; such irrational laws would now be impossible to propose in free countries.

Those who try to argue against gay marriage either refer to a concept of marriage restricted by (their) religious dogma to man and woman only for reproductive purpose (but how to explain the marriage of people who cannot have children, maybe because they are 70 years old already? or the marriage of people who have other convictions?); or they claim that allowing any couple to get married will (somehow) undermine the values of marriage (but how to explain already high divorce rates, serial marriages of Hollywood stars as well as politicians?); or they claim that the purpose of marriage is to provide a good environment for child-raising (but many gay couples have children, and many traditional couples have no children). A commitment to freedom of the individual, and freedom of contract, must by necessity lead to free marriage, involving any mutually consenting adult couple, no matter what their race, beliefs, sexual orientation, profession, or age. Already, same-sex unions have full legal status in Belgium and the Netherlands.

One may argue that a logical consequence of such freedom would also be the acceptance of polygamy among consenting adults — and the liberty-minded one to ask: why not? Ultimately, the State may very well stop dictating forms of marriage to Society, as long as all parties are consenting adults and neither force nor fraud is involved. This is basically what freedom of contract means.