So far, most people would nod their heads except that this statement is either meaningless or buncombe on high red wheels. Exercising my liberty could mean free speech or it could mean killing you for dissing me. I would certainly be much freer if I could simply shoot the next SOB who cuts me off, without fear of retaliation by the “jack booted thugs” right? So it matters very much whether a majority believes my right to do this is moral, dishonorable or wrong.
” Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection.”
OK. But that sets up a straw man. A great deal of deference must be paid in a free nation to majoritarian morality. To impose its will on a majority, especially if it involves matters as fundamental as morality, a minority must in the final analysis rely on force or persuasion. The problem with judicial fiat is that no persuasion is involved. It is simply an edict from on high, no different than edicts from the throne recalling the divine rights of kings.
What the Courts have been doing in the area of morality is not creating new moral strictures, i.e.: forcing mandatory church attendance. Instead it is busy demolishing settled moral taboos established over millennia which the drafters of our civil contract – the Constitution – either never addressed or considered perfectly normal.
” To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.”
To suggest that our forefathers died and struggled for pederasts to proudly proclaim their perversions and for same sex marriage is so bizarre as to be amusing.