Let me refresh your memory, here is what you wrote in post #179:
Our interpretation of what the natural rights of man entails in its intersection with the law has quite obviously changed,
That sounds a lot like moral relativism.
The founding fathers envisioned a government where the people were sovereign, and what a majority of the people thought would be reflected (if Constitutional) in the ideals and goals of their Representation.
Really? You've got some evidence that the Founding Fathers believed in a government where a majority of the population determined everything?
If you feel such laws against contraception were Constitutional (and thus compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man), and you are against use of contraception, why are you not for enacting laws against contraception?
There are a number of things that I am in favor of or opposition to, that doesn't mean that I believe these things should be legislated.
You feel that the decision striking them down was incorrect, yet you do not wish to correct the error?
First of all, this thread is about a decision by the Anglican Church nearly 80 years ago, I'm not even sure how the Supreme Court got brought into it.
Secondly, yes I believe that Griswold v. Connecticut was one of the worst SCOTUS rulings ever AND it set the stage for the murder of 52 million innocent Americans. There are no "penumbras" or "emanations" of privacy in the Constitution, it simply isn't there and the fact that the Court had to mention "penumbras" and "emanations" is an acknowledgement that it isn't there.
However, my feelings about Griswold DO NOT mean that I believe contraception should be illegal.
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?
“However, my feelings about Griswold (one of the worst SCOUTS decisions ever) DO NOT mean that I believe contraception should be illegal”
Again I ask you, again and again.