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.
Actually I have stated several times what I mean by *rights*. All people have the *right* to do whatever they want – whatever they want – as long as they do not infringe on someone else’s rights – as long as they do not consciously harm others – as long as they do not break the law. I am *for* the most freedom possible.
And I am open to that changing. Not to us losing *rights* and freedoms (as has sadly happened) – but to us gaining more. Something like this:
” Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” – Thomas Jefferson
I noticed this article making the rounds today. If true – you can give up on trying to control people’s sexuality:
“More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past…”