Equal Rights?

The meaning of the equality of man is pivotal to any consideration of specific human rights, and with good precedent; its theme is a golden thread running through the American fabric, stitched over time by an unforgettable line of successors. The Framers “embalmed” the equality truth in The Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln hallowed it in his Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King Jr. reclaimed it in his I Have a Dream speech; in addition, the Constitution backs it with the consent of the governed and the full force of law -- specifically with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Many are keen to point out that equality is a status given to us by law, that we are “equal before the law.” In a certain and important sense this observation is correct; but the more important question is from what does the legal status of its truth derive? Is the Fourteenth Amendment solely a type of contract, or does it stem from immutable and inalienable rights? Is it something we grant only if we want, by some legal fiction, or something we ought to grant no matter what?

It is a sad fact that the truth “all men are created equal” was slow in developing its practical significance, but it is no less true for that reason. Lincoln wrote, “The assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration not for that but for its future use.” Unfortunately, however, the phrase “all men are created equal” has not maintained the meaning it had for Lincoln; nor has the Declaration's mutually important phrase “the pursuit of happiness.”

The Founding Fathers and their more immediate posterity, like Lincoln, were schooled in the tenets and animated by the spirit of the Perennial Philosophy; thus we can take the words of Boethius, summing up Plato and Aristotle, to exemplify what they understood to be the meaning of this particular tenet, [happiness is] “a life made perfect by the possession in aggregate of all good things."

It should be clear, on any account, that the conception of happiness found in the Declaration assumes no possible conflict between various pursuits of happiness, it assumes a common goal, or good, for everyone, which includes the potential happiness of everyone else. Naturally, this leads us to inquire about the meaning of equality, and the more specific nature of happiness.

To begin with an analogy, simply consider different types of triangles. Though different, each triangle we imagine yet shares the same essential nature with every other triangle. Therefore, if we said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all triangles are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent properties, that among these is the property that the sum of angles is always 180 degrees"; if we put it that way it would make perfect sense to talk about equality.

In the same way, when we talk about man and the equality of man we are talking about man's essential nature. Thomas Aquinas observed that in addition to our fundamental desire for happiness, mankind has basic and essential needs for self-preservation, procreation, community and rationality. The Declaration, as noted, assumes a common goal; the fundamental human needs Aquinas lists are simply the properties of our common goal. To demonstrate this simply ask, can the common good, human happiness, be reached without the existence of human inclinations to preserve themselves, procreate, unite in community, and grow in moral and intellectual virtues?

Our fundamental equality, rooted in our nature as rational beings, inescapably binds us to the common good. Therefore, given the context of the aim of the common good, we understand that equality before the law is rooted in nature, not whim. In addition, we have a standard by which to judge particular claims to equal rights. For example, heterosexual marriage is an equal good, good for all; it is established in a natural need of the common good, thus its “special treatment” is consistent with the equality principle – the government merely recognizes it as a natural need and promotes its importance. Conversely, if the government were to sanction homosexual marriage it would be fabricating a right not in accord with the equality principle. In doing so, it would depart from natural law and effectively invoke the principle of chaos, whim, tyranny: might makes right.