There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between arguing that something should be illegal and simply acknowledging that government has the authority to make it illegal if it so desires.
I wonder which enumerated power would cover such Government regulation. Interstate commerce again? The Liberals favorite excuse for unlimited government power!
Libertarians LOVE to bring up the Commerce Clause. Why don't you tell us, what DOES the Commerce Clause cover?
And let's take the federal government out of it, ALL of the states had morality laws at the time the Constitution was ratified (homosexuality was a capital offense in some states), NOBODY suggested that the states didn't have the authority. Do you believe that the states still have the authority?
That the government HAS the authority (at either the State or Federal level), and that the decisions striking down laws against birth control were poorly decided (and thus, using logic, that they should still be illegal).
What does the Commerce Clause cover? The regulation of Interstate commerce, not the regulation of every act or non-action that could conceivable have any influence at all upon interstate commerce. Notice the difference?
I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.
Do you think a State law could abridge your freedom of speech? Keep in mind that the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law....”. Do you think that a State law abridging your freedom of speech would be compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man?