Amendment IX prevents the banning of gay marriage, doesnt it?

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


In plain terms, "the Rights listed in the Constutition cant be used to deny rights retained by the people."

Hetero couples have rights of inheritence. Therefore, gay couples must have that right.

Or am I reading it wrong?

Thats why it's important who sits on the court. You would have thougt that we would not have had slavery because of our Constitution but...

among defining one's "rights", it's also to make sure that the majority cannot take away the rights of a minority.

The issue is that these freaks don't ever consider consequences. If you say it's okay to fire people for sexual orientation, I can fire 20 today in Texas for being heterosexual, and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.

More specifically, if you say any contract between any two people of the same sex that can be construed to confer the benefits of marriage is invalid means that virtually every partnership business is invalid.

nobody's going to pay the slightest bit of attention to that pesky old Amendment IX, besides, gays aren't really people or even really American so it doesn't apply to them anyway.

:sarcasm:

How would you determine "a couple"? I don't think you can just say living together constitutes a couple, because some people live in the same residence for financial reasons, or some other matter of convenience. I suspect that's why so many have been asking for "a legal contract". Some legal documentation to prove "couple" status.

All it says is that to the extent the constitution doesn't change something, that something isn't changed. It removes the concept of the constitution overriding any preexisting right or state power )see no 10) just because it didn't reaffirm or refer to it.

So it begs the question: is there a right outside the federal consitution? Massachusetts for example found a right to homosexual marriage in its own constitution. Illinois didn't.

even if a right isn't listed in the Constitution specifically, its exclusion does not equal denial. Think abortion.

That was Bork's word for it. :eyes: