Since I am not a libertarian but a classical liberal in the Jeffersonian sense, or a Goldwater-Taft conservative, I believe that cases may be made, for the sake of public order, decency, and justice, where local (though not Federal or even state) governments may properly prohibit certain activities, not only in the area of sexuality, but in other areas of human action. These prohibitions must be conducted in light of necessary restraints on police and prosecutorial action, as exemplified in the Bill of Rights, and punishment should never be excessive.
Then it seems you are saying that in some cases local governments could make sodomy illegal - but not the federal or even state government. I agree that local governments ( and even state governments) are the proper place for domestic concerns. However, the Supreme Court has now decided that sodomy is a *right*. And so no state or local government can make it illegal.
As to the idea of whether people have the *right* to do wrong. My view, which I have stated in other posts - is that that is what free will is. People unquestionably have the *right* to do wrong...they have the *right* to choose. And people demonstrate that every minute of every day around the globe. For those who say that people do not have the *right* to do wrong - that is, imo, the same kind of thinking as the Islamists. Ask any Islamist if people have the *right* to do wrong - and I'm sure they will agree with EV - that no one has the *right* to do anything that they believe is wrong. I disagree.
So, it seems we disagree. Hopefully - that is no surprise to you.
Here is a quote I like from Goldwater:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them . . .
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being . . .
...I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
. . . I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
And this is clever:
"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals.
"That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." -- Lynn Lavner
As far as it goes, the Supreme Court has, since the late 1930s entirely abandoned the natural law and limited government underpinnings of the Founders. With the partial exception of Clarence Thomas (although the positions of Alito and Roberts are not yet clear), the justices and the American judicial system in general have abandoned the doctrine of original intent for one of the Constitution as a "living document" (i.e. a wax nose) on the part of the liberals or stare decisis (let the opinion stand) on the part of the so-called conservatives (Scalia included). The high court's overturning of the Texas sodomy law was ahistorical, against both original intent and established practices in all states from 1788 to 1960. I have focused on the issue of sodomy, but the principle of inventing reasons for government intervention was as specious here as it has been in many other cases, including Roe v. Wade.
What liberals, RINOs, "law 'n' order" types, and many libertarians fail to realize is that a central government powerful enough to override state and local decisions virtually at will may also be powerful enough to interfere with their own liberties. The same liberals who denounce the Patriot Act seem to have no problem when, under a Democratic administration, the IRS harasses conservative organizations and the full force of Federal police power is unleashed against militias or religious cultists. Local tyrants like Boss Tweed in New York, Huey Long in Louisiana, or the Prendergasts in Kansas City are bad news to the locals, but the nation as a whole is not affected. It is better in many respects to restrict Federal control to give leeway to "bad" local and state governments so long as some fundamental level of civil rights is preserved.
You also have not clarified what you mean by rights. I adhere to the natural law standard that individual rights are those that are necessary for the human condition, with the primary rights being those to life, liberty, and property. They are granted by God and not the state. I also believe that humans are given free will with respect to their actions. However, free will and rights are two different things. No reasonable person would say that the free will decision of a Jeffrey Dahmer or a Charles Manson to kill people constitutes a right on their part.
With regard to Islam, my understanding is that Muslims believe in a sort of determinism that limits free will. OTOH, the Christian religion recognizes free will though also believing that the effects of original sin weakened that will. For this reason and the respect afforded to the individual, there is a great difference between how morality was reflected in the civil law in the United States prior to 1960 and how it exists under sharia law.