Natural human rights are outgrowths of the natural law. The natural law provides us with moral directions about how to live in harmony with others and natural rights exist naturally when we live according to those rules. Natural rights then are an effect, not a cause; they are dependent not subsistent.
Recently, this fact seems to have been forgotten, as fringe groups such as pro-sodomy activists, led by lost minds like that of California Superintendent of School Instruction, Jack O'Connell, campaign for the supposed "RIGHT" to engage in and teach the false-normalcy of various anti-social behaviors.
Thankfully, the passage of marriage amendments in Florida, Arizona, and California, and the protection of children from being adopted by active homosexuals in Arkansas shows that most Americans still recognize, at least implicitly or emotionally, the difference between "Rights" and "Negative Rights;" those behaviors which fall within the boundaries of rational choice and those which constitute mindlessness, savagery, and lead to chaos and an eventual loss of natural rights.
If the state were to create a "negative right" such as the right for two persons of the same-sex to marry or create a so-called "civil union," which places mindless, savage, and chaotic-type behaviors on a pedestal and forces there defence through law, rather than those actions which attempt to conform to reality through knowledge and wisdom, then the state and law become unjust; out of touch with reality; repressive and hurtfull,the state and law become ad hoc and whimsical; law becomes the opposite of law. The law should not rebel against itself. The rebellion of natural rights against the natural law is the rebellion of the branches against the tree. If the rebels were ever to succeed, they would soon find that they destroyed the basis for their own existence.
