That's the best argument ever against all collectivism, or allowing government to do anything besides its enumerated powers. Welfare, social security, gun ownership restrictions, product safety requirements, definition of marriage, smoking, drinking... tons of stuff that you had the right to decide whether to do or not, but now only get to do what the government says you get to do.
And yet, for some reason, legions of people are against constitutional government because they think shrinking government will restrict their freedoms of choice.
This is not an accurate statement.
Marriage - fundamental right, no compelling state interest to restrict.
Welfare - not fundamental right.
Social security - not fundamental right.
Gun ownership - fundamental right, compelling state interest to restrict.
Product safety requirements - legitimate regulation of interstate commerce + compelling state interest to regulate.
Smoking - not fundamental right.
Drinking - not fundamental right.
tons of stuff that you had the right to decide whether to do or not, but now only get to do what the government says you get to do.
This does not accurately reflect any sort of legal concept. While your vernacular use of the word "right" is accurate, it is not accurate in any legal sense of the word. Legally, the word "right" in your sentence should be replaced by the word "ability."
Your misunderstanding of the legal concept of a "right" is causing you to lump all of the above together, when it should not be.
For this discussion to be constructive people really need to understand what is a "fundamental" right protected by the 14th Amend. and what is not. Those rights listed in the Bill of Rights, for example, are a non-exhaustive list of fundamental rights. Refer also to macadamizer's post on this issue in this thread.
Some helpful but non-comprehensive information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right
Guys, we have a lot of these types of legal/constitutional discussions in the Sink and nearly no one uses any of the terminology correctly. People spend lifetimes understanding just small sections of our Constitution - we have 1st Amendment specialists, 2nd Amendment specialists - and even after lifetimes of studying what essentially amounts to a handful of paragraphs, people still disagree as to their meanings.
On the one hand, this means that reasonable people can disagree as to the meanings of *some* of these things. On the other, it means that the Kitchen Sink constitutional discussions occur at a very low level and that there is a
tremendous amount of misunderstanding and misinformation going around.
It would be really great to keep at least the misinformation to a minimum.
On a scale of 0-100 on constitutional law expertise, with the Supreme Court at 100, I'd put myself at a 20, an average person who's gone through any rigorous law school at about a 15, and the other 99% of the population somewhere between 0 and 1. The subject is extremely complex. In my personal opinion, it's one of the hardest legal subjects to be an expert on. The introductory ConLaw text in law school is 1600 pages long - it's not exactly a picture book.
And that's just federal...
I'm not saying this to be a dick, I'm saying it to put things in context. If we can talk about these things in a mature way these discussions are actually great fun. But the legal language bears little relationship to the English language and if there's any desire for these threads to be productive we have to be clear about separating the two.
When the Supreme Court hands down decisions, their decisions essentially become facts for the purposes of jurisprudence. What I mean by this is if the Supreme Court says that being able to read a newspaper while sitting on the crapper is a constitutionally protect right, it is a fact that in the United States reading a newspaper while sitting on the crapper is a constitutionally protected right. That's not an elegant way of saying it, but it makes the point.
There are natural rights, legal rights, vernacular rights, property rights, economic rights, individual rights, things that aren't rights at all, things that should be rights and aren't and things that shouldn't be and are and then there are just plain old opinions and the distinction of what these might mean in a legal vs. a philosophical context.
It's nothing less than a minefield out there. Let's navigate it with prudence.
edit - zefflyn, this post is not directed at you in its entirety, it's just your post that prompted it. This misunderstanding and misuse of language is what fuels a lot of the circular and less-than-constructive discussions on these topics.
I'm going to call you on that! Please provide proof (not some nut-case website, either) to support your claim! 
