Resolved: Supreme Court should overturn "Diaz v. Brewer" (2011).

In this resolution, I stand on the CON end of this debate and negate the resolution. Before continuing, I'd like to establish the following parameters for this debate.[Definitions]Diaz v. Brewer (2011): a lawsuit heard on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed a lower court's issuance of a preliminary injunction that prevented Arizona from implementing its 2009 statute that would have terminated the eligibility for healthcare benefits of any state employee's same-sex domestic partner (Wikipedia) [3] [Observations]1: The resolution asks us to evaluate a decision petitioned to be placed in front of the United States Supreme Court, which evaluates legislation through the American Constitution. Therefore, the evaluation of this law should be through the eyes of the American Constitution. 2: As such, despite my instigation of this debate, the burden of proof falls more on my opponent. While my opponent must prove that Gov. Jan Brewer's (R-AZ) decision to end eligibility benefits for state employees including homosexuals in domestic partnerships violates in no way the American Constitution, the CON only needs to provide a single violation of the American ConstitutionWith my parameters established, I move on toward the iteration of my solitary contention for this debate:Contention: Brewer's law violates the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.Because Brewer's law inherently discriminated against homosexual couples employed by the state of Arizona and violated a homosexual couple's uniterated right to non-domination, it violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.Sub-point 1a: Brewer's law violates the Ninth Amendment. The following explains the intention and function of the Ninth Amendment of the American Constitution: "The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ... It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named. " [1] The Framers of the Constitution realized that not every right belonging to the members of the citizenry can be explictitly enumerated by the document, and henceforth crafted this amendment in order to protect the basic, natural rights of human beings (which encompasses the definition of human rights with regard that natural rights are the rights that are placed upon human beings and are inalienable). What I need to prove is that Brewer's law violates some sort of inherent right in human beings, and what I contend is that it violates the theory of non-domination for human beings:In this law, all domestic partnerships homosexual and heterosexual are going to have the benefits repealed. However, the problem is that homosexuals cannot get married in order to save their benefits whereas heterosexuals can. What we have here is a lack of decent alternatives and an expansion of arbitrary control, which violates non-domination principle of informed consent [2]. Sub-point 1b: Brewer's law violates the 14th Amendment.The state of Arizona has a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which doesn't allow a homosexual the same privilege as a heterosexual in order to be able to compensate and save their state benefits. Henceforth, this is discrimination. The reasoning is sound. This is the same reasoning that the Ninth Circuit Court upheld when they ruled in favor of Diaz in Diaz v. Brewer (2011) [3][1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...;[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...