Interestingly, on the same morning that this appeared here on our blog; Lex Anteinternet: The Natural Law: (which appears immediately below this), George F. Will actually argued a similar position in his column. Unfortunately, I'm not paid by the Washington Post for the opinions expressed here.
I was just going to note this as a comment to the just published item, but because Will's position comes from a different angle, I'll just make a brief post here instead. Will's column focuses on a line in Justice Robert's Obegefell dissent in which he criticizes the majority for taking a position he related to the Lochner v. New York decision of 1905. That case came to the Supreme Court when Lochner, a small baker, challenged a New York working hours law. The Court struck down the law as unconstitutional but in 1936 came back and overturned Lochner.
Will doesn't like that Lochner was overturned and has written on that before, his concept being that its a trampling on individual rights without constitutional authority. As a true Conservative, that position on Will's part makes sense, although I frankly think his reasoning is weak here. At any rate, he notes in his current article that Robert's fails to appreciate that Lochner, which Roberts doesn't like and has cited in a negative fashion before, is based on "natural rights", i.e., Natural Law.
I disagree with Will that the type of law reflected in Lochner is unconstitutional, or that its necessarily against the Natural Law. But it's interesting to see somebody else citing Natural Law in the public venue. Will would even go so far as to ask any future Supreme Court nominees if they agree with the natural rights concept expressed in Lochner.