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.
“The problem with Griswold was the precedent it set more than the ruling itself.” wagglebee
And you are honestly trying to tell me you are against a repeal of this decision, one of the worst ever? Are there other SCOTUS decisions you think were decided incorrectly that you ALSO do not want repealed? Or is this a one off?
You say you do not believe contraception should be illegal, and again and again I ask you....
Why not?
Why not?
Why not?