Well, then you favor the absurd 'living Constitution' method of constitutional interpretation, which gives judges almost unlimited power to reshape society according to their will. I favor the Original Meaning approach, whereby the Constitution means now what it was understood to mean when ratified and given consent to by the people. The 14th was primarily passed to deal with former slaves and racial concerns; to say it now somehow contains a right to abortion, or right to have a homosexual relationship recognized by the state, or whatever other fantasy rights you can think of is ludicrous. To say that judges should be able to substitute their idea of what 'liberty' means for that of society is to give judges more power than was ever intended. I don't know what quoting Justice Harlan is supposed to prove, unless your intent was to pick a 'conservative' justice who favored an expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment. So what? He got that wrong. Even superior justices like Scalia don't get it right all the times. And besides, Harlan also said;
---"These decisions give support to a current mistaken view of the Constitution and the constitutional function of this court. This view, in a nutshell, is that every major social ill in this country can find its cure in some constitutional principle and that this court should take the lead in promoting reform when other branches of government fail to act. The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare nor should this court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven of reform movements.---"
Who knows how he would have ruled on Roe had he made it longer, or marriage today, with such views which seem contradictory.
Not one provision of the Constitution, including the 14th's Due Process, was ever conceived of, ratified with, or given consent to with the idea that it in any way applies to things like abortion or gay marriage. So who says that 'liberty' demands a right to abortion? Who says that 'liberty' demands the state give to homosexual couples the same status and recognition it gives to traditional marriage? Who says these are inalienable rights? As Scalia would say, there is no support for such ridiculous claims either in the actual text of the Constitution, or the tradition of our nation and its laws. So where do you get that its for the Sup Court to say otherwise. In doing so, they are substituting their will for sound judgement. The inability of past generations to predict how judges would twist their words and intent beyond all recogntion does not in any way stand as an endorsement for such outrageous behavior from the Court.
Saying that your preferred policies are somehow enshrined in the Constitution in your absurdly open-ended (and judicially-defined) view of 'liberty' is nothing more than a way to justify an unjustified Court imposition of what can't be properly won through the legitimate democratic channels. It is such an elitist, arrogant mindset that has led to the Culture War. If those holding such elitist leftwing views were content to have their utopia in the few areas where they actually enjoy public support, then the national public discourse would be a lot less contentious. But you can't do that, can you? No, you have to go and impose your values on all of us who are not so enlightened, and you rationalize it by telling yourself that you are doing the Constitution's bidding. I'm sure the Left gets a tremendous amount of smug satisfaction out of sticking it to red states in such a manner, but it still lacks any Constitutional merit or justification.