Beyond Same-Sex Marriage
by S. Cosburn Mortimer,
research director of the Bankers' Alliance for Responsible Freedom
The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that marriage may no longer be restricted to heterosexual unions has generated much discussion, but so far the discussion has produced more heat than light. Luckily, in anticipation of this court decision, the Bankers' Alliance for Responsible Freedom had already prepared a position paper which does clarify these issues.
In brief the Banker's Alliance believes that the decision is wrong, but not for the reasons that other commentators believe that it is wrong. We believe that it is wrong because it does not go far enough.
Marriage is a contract. It is a contract for (worldly) goods and for services ("love"). As a service contract it is exclusive. Where love is concerned the contracting parties are forbidden - for life - from obtaining it from anyone other than the party to whom they are married.
In other words, marriage is a conspiracy in restraint of trade. And it has all the effects of restraint of trade.
First of all, the absence of competition in the love market discourages providers from providing the best possible service. Service quickly declines to the minimum level acceptable, or even lower. The stratospheric divorce rate is proof enough that in many marriages one or both contracting parties have ceased to provide service.
In a competitive love economy, love providers would have to provide a high level of service in order for them to receive service in return. However, competition cannot be provided under the current marriage regime.
Secondly, the restrictive nature of the marriage contract creates a black market in service. Like all black markets, it is expensive. Maintenance of a paramour is an expensive undertaking requiring a commitment to long-term expenditure, while the short-term services of professional sex workers are priced far higher than they would be in a free market (if, indeed, professional sex workers would exist in a free market). Even a brief "fling" incurs extra costs necessary to maintain concealment.
The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, then, simply extends this economically catastrophic regime over a larger portion of the love economy. In the economically aware society of today, it is scarcely surprising that homosexuals have not been rushing to avail themselves of the "benefits" of marriage.
We encourage the government of Canada to extend its free market principles to the love economy. Business in the love economy should be conducted under the same terms as in the commercial economy. Service should be provided under short-term non-exclusive contracts which clearly and objectively describe the services to be provided and the compensation to be received for them. The result would be an immediate improvement in Canadian love performance which would make Canada a world leader in the love economy.
Some might object that non-exclusive love contracts would encourage so-called promiscuity. While promiscuity has some deleterious effects, they are primarily ones which can be dealt with pharmaceutically. Promiscuity therefore should not pose any serious problems, and furthermore would provide a boost to the Canadian pharmaceutical industry.
We do not need same-sex marriage. We do not need different-sex marriage. What the world needs now is love, sweet love, freely traded in a competitive love economy.
June 19, 2003
For more articles by S. Cosburn Mortimer, click the Commentary link below.
Beyond Same-Sex Marriage © Coolth, 2003
Click the banner or click here for Coolth
Commentary | Home