“The Dawn of Sex” puts forth the theory that man, like 9.99999% of the animal kingdom, is by nature polygamous.
Natural law also implies the village participating in bringing up children communally.
So natural law as espoused by the English settlers is, if not fully debunked, fairly open to interpretation.
By natural law, do we mean natural law exclusively as espoused by European colonists (that’s what America was, colonies) at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? With all of their prejudices and unscientific notions? At the time, they thought it preposterous that Man was related to apes, and evolution as a theory had yet to be discovered by about 80 years. If the Constitution is based in part on Natural Law, and science has advanced since the time
the Constitution was written, then how if at all does
the law as a whole reflect the advancements made
in science with regard to Natural Law-
Or by Natural Law do we mean something other than science—
specifically, something such as religion??
I don’t think religion as a basis for Natural Law will fly logically. In fact, it would seem to be a rather logically repulsive end
run around the concept of separation of church and state.
Just my dos centavos...
By Natural Law, I understand Nature, which we may say is lawless in human terms, yet inexorable in its influence, and hence perceived as "Law" in human terms.
I commented not so long ago on an article which noted the irony that the elite liberal class hues closely to Natural Law in their respect for Family, which is the basis of the entire elite power structure. I mean, "The Kennedys" ... come on. Say no more, say no more. Family has the provided the entire structure of my life, I might say, and it is a self-reinforcing concept, as anyone might understand that can stay married for more than ten minutes. Follow your nose.
... Oh, you can't? You didn't? You're on the outs. Nature is brutal.