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

BOP: The reason Diaz v. Brewer should be overturned is simple. As my opponent stated in Round 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.” I agree, and since the Constitution does not protect the benefits of domestic partnerships, the Supreme Court should overturn this decision.If the duty of the Supreme Court is to affect federal law through decisions made according to the US Constitution, this decision should be overturned. The Constitution protects plenty of rights, but never specifically those of domestic partners, and certainly not of their eligibility to receive the same benefits as married couples. If this matter were appearing before a state court, I would have a different opinion.As a pro-equality supporter of gay rights myself, I find it disheartening to argue against my opponent. The sad fact of the Diaz v. Brewer case, however, is that this is not a moral issue, but a legal one. Rights pertaining to same-sex marriages, domestic partners, and equal benefits are more specific than what is covered by the Constitution, and these items are not protected by said document. For that reason, the Constitution should not be used as a device for protecting those rights, and the Supreme Court should overturn the decision. In order for domestic partners to have equal benefits, a federal law should be passed, or the Constitution should be amended to allow for same-sex marriages, as presently there is no Constitutional definition of marriage.9th Amendment: I have explained “why the Ninth Amendment wouldn't protect this”. It simply states that rights listed in the Constitution won't be used a basis for the denial of other rights. The nature of this Amendment is not specific, but the one specific statement made in the 9th Amendment is not in conflict with Brewer's law for this reason: Brewer's law was not using rights listed in the Constitution as a basis for denial of rights for domestic partners. [1] Regardless of all of the non-constitutionally-listed rights imaginable, Brewer's law did not commit the sole offense that would have put it in conflict with the 9th Amendment: using current rights to prevent the granting of new rights. This type of conflict is the only thing that the 9th Amendment protects against, and it does not address discrimination.14th Amendment: "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - this does not address every imaginable law that could be used in every imaginable legal judgment. It addresses current laws. Current constitutional laws do not address or even define marriage or domestic partnerships. I agree that this means “that the laws should protect everyone”, but there are no laws addressing equal benefits for domestic partners, nor the federal legalization of same-sex marriage. If there were laws that did this, then according to the Constitution they would need to apply equally to all people. As it stands, this Amendment only addresses “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” and currently domestic partnerships are not listed among the privileges or immunities of US citizens. As such, this Amendment in its current state is not in conflict with Brewer's law.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(2008) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...