MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Anima]

I am sorry I do not follow.  The legislation granted rights.  Blacks were neither recognized as people (other than the 3/5th compromise) or as citizens.  They were not privy to any more rights at law than a cow.  By means of the amendments ratified by the States they were granted their freedom, citizenship, and rights.

By not given are you referring to, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the inalienable rights endowed by the creator that you do not believe in?  You have as much inalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness as nature allows or denies.  In turth you do not have a right to life.  However you do not have an obligation to give up your life.  You do not have a right to liberty; but you do not have an obligation to sacrifice your liberty.  You do not have a right to happiness and you do not have an obligation to sacrifice your happiness.  

This is not to say the state cannot take it from you for the sake of society.  Only that you are not obligated to surrender any of them for another without a reason.  Otherwise the only rights you have as a citizen are enumerated or substantively defined in the Constitution or if you are not a UN conspiracist the UN Charter.

I side with Mr. Jefferson and those of like mind that preceded him on the issue of rights. Governments do not grant rights, they can only serve to curb them or protect them. Governments are a necessary evil knowing that the biggest obstacle to liberty in nature is other people no better demonstrated by your vehement disagreement with the Obergefell decision.

In which case you side with John Locke (since he was the primary author to which Jefferson and the other founding fathers refer too).

Question. May a government curb a right such that a person may not exercise it in any case? If so would we say the government has taken the right? Now if said government were to then to change its curb in such a manner that a person may exercise that right, would we say they have granted the right?

As much as Locke's argument may endeavor to argue that society exist by nature. Nature itself would disagree with that. As previously said the right to life, liberty, or happiness does not exist. According to nature no animal or thing is prohibited from taking your life, liberty, or happiness. So by what right do you claim no one may take these from you? Surely not by means of the natural law.