[clavalle]

That flies in the face of the idea of a Democratic Republic where minorities Rights are protected from the whim of the majority.

If the majority can simply redefine a Right, what is the point of elevating these things to the status of a Right?

[hackinthebochs]

Within the framework of a society, whatever rules have been defined are law. Structuring society in such a way that minority rights are protected is a part of this. One doesn't have to reference some overarching 'natural rights' to have them protected: you simply write them down as one of the founding principles of your society. This is what the declaration of independence/bill of rights has done and its worked out pretty well so far. A right is always a reference to a constraint in behavior, agreed upon through some mutual framework, and enforced through the might instilled to that framework.

But make no mistake, any of these "rights" will always be at the whim of the majority. The question simply becomes how big of a majority is required, and how well can your institutions withstand a serious attack on the minority by a (less than supermajority) majority. Speaking of "self-evident truths" will not save you in the face of such an assault. We must always be vigilant that the structure of our institutions are sound.

[clavalle]

I don't know. Law without principle seems hollow to me.