It's not a boon. It's not a favor. And it's definitely not a reward for good behavior. Neither is protecting our rights, as Justice Anthony Kennedy asserts regarding the issuance of permits, a matter of grace. Public officials have no discretion when it comes to our natural human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nor does the enumeration in the Amendments to the Constitution, generally referred to as the Bill of Rights, of a few of the specific rights most likely to be infringed, constitute a catalog of minimums or maximums. Rather, the enumerated serve as an example and reinforces the bounds which the agents of government are not to cross in the interest of protecting our inalienable rights.

For all intents and purposes, the Constitution of the United States is concerned with two kinds of rights--those that follow naturally from our characteristics as human beings and those that flow from any citizen's participation in the governance of the nation--i.e. as electors, jurors, office holders and enforcers of the law. Again, as Justice Kennedy asserted

every person has the right to know what the laws are and to enforce them without fear of retaliation or retribution.

Which, at a minimum, would seem to make the secret executive orders emanating from the Bush White House unconstitutional on their face. Be that as it may, our civil rights seem to be more secure than our human rights and, although, like the framers of the Constitution, I can't presume to provide a comprehensive list, I do want to draw up a list and make reference to a few that our public officials seem increasingly inclined to ignore--i.e. the right

to speak

to write

to distribute information

to travel

to settle

to assemble

to petition

to associate

to cohabit

to procreate

to acquire sustenance

to contract

to hold assets

to transfer property

to trade

to be secure in one's person and effects

and, finally, to have these rights equitably protected.

While it is by no means a comprehensive list and could be compressed into "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the Bush/Cheney reduction of their official obligations to protecting persons and property, as espoused by conservatives, is too narrow on the one hand, and virtually impossible to achieve on the other. Which is why it was bound to fail.

And it's not just because all things are mutable and everybody eventually dies. It's because, as the list suggests, being secure in our persons and property is the least of our rights and not worth much if the right to associate and/or contract with another person or persons, to cite a currently contentious example, is not honored by the political subdivision to which this task has been assigned.

Whether or not the rights are honored and held inviolate is really the crux of the matter. That we have them is indisputable under our Constitution. Equally indisputable is the apparent preference in some segments of the population for the unequal distribution of the services associated with our rights. Which is why, for example, there's a movement afoot (in California and elsewhere) to deny persons of the same gender the right to have their domestic partnership contracts registered and recognized as are those of differently gendered individuals. While it is argued that the intent of this restriction is to prevent an endorsement of personal sexual behaviors which some people find offensive, the effort is obviously misdirected. (Since sexual behaviors do not define marriage, there's no reason to assume that marriage defines sexual behavior).

I think it can be fairly argued that the registration and permitting of contracts in which individuals voluntarily assume the obligations of providing spiritual and material support to another person was considered socially beneficial and that's why the keeping of official records generally replaced common law practices of earlier times. Which is why, as Justice Kennedy would explain, the issuance of the permit is automatic when the social requirements to identify the individuals by name, residence and age have been met. Clearly, gender is not relevant to the intent and purpose of providing spiritual and material support. Age, on the other hand is. Because minors, whose material support is still, of necessity, being provided by adults, aren't in a position to make such a commitment of themselves.

So, really, unless a political jurisdiction wants to abdicate the responsibility and obligation of issuing permits and keeping records of domestic partnerships entirely, there are no grounds for refusing to issue a permit, if one is asked for. Which should remind us that other kinds of contracts need not be registered to be considered legally binding. Getting a permit is not, unless there's a clear and present danger that's sought to be prevented (like operating a vehicle without having been trained in its use) by imposing additional requirements such as a driving test, a matter of grace. (Which, obviously, doesn't prevent some public officials from trying to link irrelevant considerations, such as citizenship, to the issuance of a driver's license).

On the other hand, given that perspective, I would be willing to argue that the permits to pollute routinely issued by the Environmental Protection Agency aren't constitutional either, unless we assert a right to deposit poisonous wastes in our soil, water and air, regardless of their detrimental short term and long term effects. Which brings me to the question of why regulations and some outright prohibitions of behavior have been found desirable. Why do we delegate our agents of government to protect individual rights to which we all, in theory, consent? And the answer, I would argue, is to be found in the fact that time is an important factor--not every right can be exercised by everyone at the same time. We have to take turns, even when it comes to the basic right of speaking, and that's why we need rules and someone to insure that they're followed.

That's not the conservative perspective. Conservatives assume that people are basically selfish (evil) and that, in addition to having to be protected from each other, need to be bribed with privileges (what we consider rights) they deserve by complying with social directives--i.e. being obedient. Consistent with these assumptions, which mesh nicely with their authoritarian bent, conservatives reject the concept of entitlements. "There is no free lunch" is shorthand for the conviction that humans have to be obedient, if they expect to survive. In their world view, there are no human rights (other than to be born), no entitlements and no concomitant obligations on anybody's part to insure that those who are born actually survive.

When you come to think of it, it seems almost ironic that people who are so keen on obedience seem so disinclined to practice it themselves.