The advocates of same-sex unions think that they have an argument in appealing to the justice of treating all alike. In fact, the editors of the PDN used this very argument when they endorsed same-sex unions. Is it fair to treat everybody in the same way? Is “equality” the same thing as “equity”? The editors of the PDN seem to think so.

To help us to analyze this question a few distinctions are needed. Aristotle distinguished three forms of justice. There is the justice that governs what is due in the relationship between individuals (commutative justice). There is the justice that governs what is due in the relationship of the community to the individual (distributive justice). Finally, there is the justice that governs what is due in the relationship of the individual to the community (legal justice).

For Aristotle, justice was a matter of rendering to others what was their due. In this framework, a “right” is the claim that others have on what is due to them. Rights are thus paired with obligations. According to Aristotle, you cannot have a right without there being a corresponding obligation on the part of others to respect those rights.

At the time of the Enlightenment, a new understanding of “rights” emerged. “Rights” were conceived apart from any obligations due to others, and in the process they were absolutized without regard to what is just to others. This way of conceiving “rights” (without regard to what is just) lies at the basis of the present (distorted) notion there exists such things as “abortion rights” and “homosexual rights.”

When is “equal” treatment inherently unfair? Take, for example, the issues of paying taxes. Taxation falls under the aspect of legal justice. The community has a “right” claim on the members of the community to render what is necessary for the welfare of the community. They in turn have a duty to pay taxes. But, in rendering the debt, are all to be treated “equally”? Would it be “fair” for the rich and the poor to be obliged to pay the same amount of taxes? Did not the old-fashioned socialists have a point when they said: “From all according to their ability; to all according to their need”? That may not be equal treatment, but is it not eminently fair? In the end, it is equity (fairness) not equality that determines what is just in society.

When is “equality” unfair? In the area of legal justice, equal taxation is inherently inequitable (unfair). The same is true in matters of distributive justice. All members of a community have an equal right for respectful consideration for the benefits to be distributed. In order for that distribution to be fair, however, more factors have to be considered than simple equality. These other factors include: need, function, merits, and past contributions to society. The different needs generated by the different roles and responsibilities that various individuals have discharged justify their being allotted different benefits. Veterans who have sacrificed themselves for the community or others who have performed meritorious service are entitled in fairness to unequal treatment. Is it “unfair” that veterans are according certain rights not given to non-veterans? Do the editors of the PDN think that, in the name of “equality,” it would be only fair if their pay were the same as those who peddle the paper on the corner? I think not. The editors and the peddlers have equal dignity, but their service to the company is not the same. Hence, unequal treatment is not unfair.

The same is true of those biological couples who undertake to put their love for one another at the service of raising the next generation of citizens for Guam. They are performing an indispensable service to their territory the value of which has always been recognized in civil law. That they should be granted certain benefits and rights in order to foster the welfare of their biological families has always been seen as fair and just, even when that treatment given to them was not the same as that given to unmarried individuals without the obligations of marriage and family.

Marriage does not come in flavors. There is no “heterosexual marriage” and “homosexual marriage.” There is only marriage and everything else. To treat “everything else” as though it was equal to marriage is itself unfair. The editors of the PDN would like us to think that the issue regarding same-sex unions is one of equality. They have not realized that it is really one of equity.