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

I will adhere to your definition of "Diaz v. Brewer", and with your two principal Observations. Your sole contention (dealing with the 9th and 14th Amendments) is clear, so I will focus on that. As per these observations, I am not setting out to prove that Brewer's law violates “some sort of inherent right in human beings,” merely that it “violates in no way the American Constitution.” The Constitution does not list the inherent rights of human beings, it lists the inherent rights of legal US citizens. These rights are carefully enumerated, and rights pertaining specifically to domestic partnerships are not among them. However, I will take into account your quote from a source quoting the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The source goes on to explain that "It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named." The sentence immediately following that quote (in your source) states "Yet neither the language nor the history of the Ninth Amendment offers any hints as to the nature of the rights it was designed to protect." [1] The presence of Constitutional rights does not automatically prevent access to every right not listed therein, but it does not enable every imaginable additional right, either. The non-domination theory asserts that "no one should be under the arbitrary control of another" [2], but this language is not used in the Constitution itself. The 9th Amendment (also known as the Bill of Rights) contains specific language dealing with freedom of the press, of assembly, and of religious worship among other rights, but nothing about domestic partnerships, nor of the right to be exempt from all control by another person. [3] Since this Amendment does not address domestic partnerships, it is not in conflict with Brewer's law. Since this amendment does not address the type of liberty described by the non-domination theory, said theory is irrelevant to the 9th Amendment, or its conflict with Brewer's law. The 14th Amendment does not contain any variations of the word “discrimination”, and does not mention anything concerning discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, or gender. It simply says “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [5] This does not address the right to equal benefits for domestic partners, it only addresses “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” These privileges are enumerated in the Constitution, and do not include equal benefits for homosexual couples. Similarly, it pledges not to “deprive any person of (liberty) without due process of law." As the law does not currently protect the equal rights of domestic partners, domestic partners are therefore subject to a completely lawful deprivation of liberty. The law makes no allowances for equal benefits of domestic partners, and as such it is not unlawful to deny them these benefits. For this reason, the 14th Amendment is not in conflict with Brewer's law. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://en.wikisource.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...