SCOTUS divided over SSM

[JoeB131]

You are confusing lawlessness with laws on the books, and in the beginning of the US there were no laws regarding miscegenation until they were added before, during and after the civil war.

And rights exist, they are inherent. And your example proves case in point how courts that over-step their bounds can be a danger to us all.

There are no "rights". Thre are privilages society agrees you should have. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942"

 

[Skylar]

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Will your marriage get destroyed when "marriage" means "a financial arrangement open to any member of society"?

Will your arguments ever fail to descend into 'Slippery Slope' fallacies?

 

[Pop23]

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

And which brothers or sisters are attempting to get married in the Obergefell? None at all.

You've abandoned any discussion of the topic of the thread. You finally muster the courage to pull that tail out from between your legs and join the discussion, I'll be here.

Open the door and someone will walk through

 

[Pop23]

Or to gay brothers. But hetro sibling brother/sister.

Fun game, your turn

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Blacks cannot change color. A black will always be black and nothing can change that. Gays have married for centuries.

See the difference?

 

[Pop23]

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Will your marriage get destroyed when "marriage" means "a financial arrangement open to any member of society"?

Will your arguments ever fail to descend into 'Slippery Slope' fallacies?

At one point same sex marriage was called a slippery slope fallacy.

Things that make go hmmmmm

 

[Skylar]

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Will your marriage get destroyed when "marriage" means "a financial arrangement open to any member of society"?

Will your arguments ever fail to descend into 'Slippery Slope' fallacies?

At one point same sex marriage was called a slippery slope fallacy.

Things that make go hmmmmm

Unless they don't. Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy of logic for a reason; because they're notoriously unreliable. Like spending your life savings on lottery tickets.

If your argument has degenerated into fallacies of logic, you may want to reconsider your argument.

 

[Skylar]

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Blacks cannot change color. A black will always be black and nothing can change that. Gays have married for centuries.

See the difference?

Discrimination on an arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with the requirements of marriage is still arbitrary discrimination. Be it based on race or sexual orientation.

See why the court has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times when describing why discrimination against gays is invalid?

 

[Silhouette]

Unless they don't. Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy of logic for a reason; because they're notoriously unreliable. Like spending your life savings on lottery tickets.

If your argument has degenerated into fallacies of logic, you may want to reconsider your argument.

And yet at least one Justice (Kennedy or Breyer, I forget which) this go-around brought up the slippery slope argument as having merit and teeth. How disappointing for you. It seems that Justices of the Supreme Court have at least a tenuous grasp on what the impact of case-law precedent can mean..

 

[Skylar]

Unless they don't. Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy of logic for a reason; because they're notoriously unreliable. Like spending your life savings on lottery tickets.

If your argument has degenerated into fallacies of logic, you may want to reconsider your argument.

And yet at least one Justice (Kennedy or Breyer, I forget which) this go-around brought up the slippery slope argument as having merit and teeth. How disappointing for you. It seems that Justices of the Supreme Court have at least a tenuous grasp on what the impact of case-law precedent can mean..

Actually, Kennedy cited the immediate legal harm that denying gay marriage *causes*. How denying gay marriage humiliates children by the 10s of thousands, causes them to question the integrity of family, deprives them of resources, health benefits, and survivor benefits.

That's not a 'slippery slope'. That's immediately legal harm. Damage that is being done.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

The Supreme Court justices are indirectly chosen by the People, and there is no enforceable mandate to hold them to except to amend the Constitution, or eventually replace the judges.

Just because the Court makes you cry doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

1st, there is no crying in message boarding, only whining, snarking, and petty temper tantrum-ing.

2nd: Yes, they have been doing something wrong.

You dissent with some of their decisions. Usually a minority of judges do. That doesn't mean that the court is violating any of legal rights or mandates or whatever you wish to accuse them of.

Yes, it does, if its part of an overall trend going back 50 years.

Nonsense.

That you 'disapprove' of how the Court has ruled because their decisions conflict with your subjective, partisan agenda in no way constitutes rights being 'violated.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

You didn't answer the question

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

 

[The Rabbi]

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

You didn't answer the question

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

 

[martybegan]

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more".

The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.

You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.

It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.

As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.

Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.

As long as its state government doing it.

The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.

You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.

Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

It's funny to see a 'liberty' guy like you arguing so hard against expanded rights.

Its because when you expand rights using these methods, you set the precedent for the court to deny rights using the same logic.

Making the court the final arbiter of rights is a two way street, and you people are too fixated on your own goals to realize that.

 

[martybegan]

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

You didn't answer the question

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

Only according to your own self serving, and ignorant opinion.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.

What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.

Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.

No they invoked the right of privacy which was well established.

And not in the document either. And that is part of the 4th amendment if it does exist, not the 14th. and it talks about warrants for criminal prosecution, not a medical procedure.

Criminalizing abortion is a criminal prosecution.

Not the same thing and you know it.

 

[martybegan]

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more".

The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.

You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.

It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.

As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.

Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.

As long as its state government doing it.

The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.

You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.

Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

The 10th amendment reserves to the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, if you bother to read the 10th.

again, show me where the government grants itself abortion law rights.

 

[martybegan]

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more".

The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.

You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.

It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.

As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.

Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.

As long as its state government doing it.

The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.

You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.

Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

Wrong.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with rights being 'created' or 'made up,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

The rights to due process and equal protection of the law are fundamental, and states that have enacted measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, the issue has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, the issue has to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence:

“Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog

Again, its based on your assumption and burning desire that same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal despite marriage law not saying so. The only argument that is valid is full faith and credit across state lines, and when it comes to legislatively changed marriage contracts, I don't disagree.

 

[martybegan]

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

The Supreme Court justices are indirectly chosen by the People, and there is no enforceable mandate to hold them to except to amend the Constitution, or eventually replace the judges.

Just because the Court makes you cry doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

1st, there is no crying in message boarding, only whining, snarking, and petty temper tantrum-ing.

2nd: Yes, they have been doing something wrong.

You dissent with some of their decisions. Usually a minority of judges do. That doesn't mean that the court is violating any of legal rights or mandates or whatever you wish to accuse them of.

Yes, it does, if its part of an overall trend going back 50 years.

Nonsense.

That you 'disapprove' of how the Court has ruled because their decisions conflict with your subjective, partisan agenda in no way constitutes rights being 'violated.'

it violates the rights of the people via their state legislatures to regulate their marriage contracts.

 

[martybegan]

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

You didn't answer the question

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.

 

[Seawytch]

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more".

The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.

You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.

It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.

As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.

Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.

As long as its state government doing it.

The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.

You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.

Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

Wrong.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with rights being 'created' or 'made up,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

The rights to due process and equal protection of the law are fundamental, and states that have enacted measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, the issue has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, the issue has to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence:

“Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog

Again, its based on your assumption and burning desire that same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal despite marriage law not saying so. The only argument that is valid is full faith and credit across state lines, and when it comes to legislatively changed marriage contracts, I don't disagree.

Yeah well...we had the same assumption that interracial marriages, divorcees marriages and inmate marriages were equal too. The SCOTUS confirmed that "assumption" as is their JOB.