In one of the public meetings in support of Bill 138 a sign was displayed that said that “Bill 138 equals human rights.” When confronted with this statement what are we to think and what ought we to say? The advocates of same-sex unions are making the claim that same-sex unions and the homosexual acts on which these unions are based are a “human right.” Is this claim true?

In order to answer this question, let us begin with clarifying the notion of “right(s).” A “right” is a claim on the means to an end. These claims fall into two classes according to their source. The first kind of right is that which stems from the end that God has given to all human beings. Since he who wills the end also wills the means to the end, God-given ends engender God-given claims on the means to those ends. Human rights are therefore those that flow from the act of being human. The only thing that one needs to do in order to have human rights is simply to exist. They are inalienable, as Thomas Jefferson said, because they cannot be separated from the act of being. If you exist, automatically you possess a claim on the means to attain the ends that God has assigned to all human beings. The right to life is an example of such a right. So is the right to marry.

The second class of rights is civil rights. These are the rights that come from the state. The state in establishing civil rights gives human rights a greater specification. These rights include the right to vote, to drive a car, to run a business. These rights, however, are not intrinsic to being human. They depend on more than the act of being. One has to qualify for these rights. They can also be lost.

Bill 138 seeks to establish in civil law the category of homosexual union and to give to non-biological couples in such unions a civil right to receive those rights and benefits enjoyed by married biological couples. As such, bill 138 is not about respecting already existing human rights, but rather about establishing a class of new civil rights. Even though it attempts to make a distinction between marriage and homosexual unions, these unions would be treated for all practical purposes as though they were marriages. This attempt at establishing homosexual union is only an interim step. The real intention is to change the meaning of marriage so the in the future marriage will be seen as coming in two flavors: “heterosexual marriage” and “homosexual marriage.”

May the state act institutionalize homosexual unions in this fashion? To answer this question, we begin with recalling the fact that society is structured by the nature and finality of the sexual act. The reason for saying this is that families, which are the basis of society, are based on the marital act of a biological couple. Without the marital sex of the biological couple, there would be no next generation of tax-payers. The state, because it is obliged to defend the welfare of the next generation, is obliged to favor marital sex acts. Non-marital sex acts in all their forms are detrimental to society. These acts include extra-marital sex acts, contraceptive sex acts, commercial sex acts, as well as homosexual acts. Although it may choose to tolerate certain practices in order to avoid greater evils, the state cannot institutionalize non-marital sex acts without at the same time restructuring society to the detriment of marriage and families. In so doing, the state would betray its primary responsibility of defending marriage. By creating civil rights which would confer legitimacy on non-marital sex acts, the state would be fostering role models of distorted sexuality hostile to the family-friendly environment that children need in order to integrate properly their sexuality into their whole personality. Such action by the state would violate the human rights of children.

In summary, because the state is not the source of human rights, bill 138 cannot confer a human right. Therefore, bill 138 does not equal human rights. Therefore, homosexual acts can never be defended by classifying them as human rights. Moreover, their adoption as civil rights – as envisioned in bill 138 – would constitute a grave injury to the common good of society and would bring the entire legal system into disrepute.