Previously the view of our Republic was that laws against interracial marriage were compatible with a limited government of enumerated powers that respected the natural rights of man.
Was change in that view an example of moral relativism?
Only if you are an idiot with no idea what moral relativism actually means.
Determined everything? Really? You had to go to THAT preposterous length to try to make a hash out of what I actually said? No, our Founders were against a DEMOCRACY (where the majority determines everything), but the people are still sovereign within the framework of our Constitution (as I CLEARLY stated when including that proviso).
One of the WORST SCOTUS decisions ever, and yet you are not for “correcting” this decision? Really? Honestly?
I have a hard time taking you seriously on this.
A real live member for the Preservation of Incorrectly Decided Law! Wow! How much intellectual contortion does it take to hold such a stance?
I agree, but that is not what you wrote. You used the phrase, "what the natural rights of man entails," and that certainly sounds like moral relativism to me.
Previously the view of our Republic was that laws against interracial marriage were compatible with a limited government of enumerated powers that respected the natural rights of man.
Was change in that view an example of moral relativism?
Of course not, nor was it a change in what the natural rights of man entails. Marriage IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a right. Laws against interracial marriage were abolished based on the acknowledgement that personhood had nothing to do with race, there was no change in what the natural God-given rights of man is. (Unless of course you are one of those who believe that abolition of laws against interracial marriage should be used as a reason to legalize homosexual marriage, are you one of these people?)
One of the WORST SCOTUS decisions ever, and yet you are not for “correcting” this decision? Really? Honestly?
The problem with Griswold was the precedent it set more than the ruling itself.