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

BOP: My opponent's original statement about the burden of proof is as follows: “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.” This is entirely different from saying that the Constitution explicitly prohibits equal rights for domestic partners. I was not tasked with proving that the Constitution specifically declares a statute against the equal rights of domestic partners, merely the burden of proving that denying equal rights for domestic partners does not currently conflict with the Constitution. As such, the task before me relies not on my ability to construct an original case against equal rights for domestic partners, but to prove that denying these rights would not go against current constitutional law.My opponent seems unwilling to let me debate on the terms he himself has set, claiming I need to “explain why the legislation is constitutionally sound”, and “why overturning Diaz v. Brewer (2011) would have a constitutional basis” - while at the same time (as stated in Round 2) “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”. Therefore, I would have to find an absence of language in the Constitution directly and specifically addressing this issue in order to prove there are no conflicts, while also finding the presence of specific language addressing the issue to prove “why overturning Diaz v. Brewer (2011) would have a constitutional basis.” How is it possible to simultaneously prove that the Constitution does and does not address the issue?My opponent claims that I'm looking at the issue “too literally”, “too narrowly, unlike me”, and that I should examine “other angles.” This is after setting his own criteria establishing that I must prove why a single law would be in violation of a single document – this is a narrow issue, and involves a document which was worded (and amended) in a finite way, which is now set into US law. I am to argue on whether Brewer's law is in conflict with things as they are, not as they should be.9th Amendment: My opponent says “the protection of rights under this amendment is really arbitrary.” This is not true, it clearly states, in its entirety: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This does not address the scope or number of rights listed in the present or future of the document, it addresses the usage of rights currently listed in the document to prevent the establishment of future rights. Brewer's law, as I explained last round, is not relying on any established Constitutional rights to serve as a basis for the denial of rights as yet unlisted. If the Constitution said “marriage is between a man and a woman”, and Brewer deemed that this meant “marriage cannot also happen between a man and a man,” it would conflict with the 9th Amendment. As it stands now, Brewer is not using current constitutional rights to prevent future ones. The non-domination principle is, as previously explained, not relevant to this debate, as it does not establish every US citizen's right to be free from every form of control. The non-domination principle is fundamentally opposed to every kind of law, and as such is irrelevant to a discussion of what should be made into law.14th Amendment: Even if I were to concede to my opponent's position that it addresses “the entire system of the establishment of laws”, that still does not mean that every US citizen receives equal benefit from every US law. There are many US laws that do not apply equally to every US citizen, such as laws based on national origin, age, criminal record, marital status, income, and employment (some are found within the Constitution itself) [1]. This shows that the rights given by the 14th Amendment are not absolute, and do not include every US citizen under the umbrella of every possible right. At some point, for something to be legally enforceable, there must be a law passed to govern it. For domestic partners, this has not happened at the Constitutional or federal level, and so the Constitution cannot be used as the basis for defending domestic partners' rights.[1] http://www.jstor.org...