Article V related ping!
When the people of CA amended their Constitution in 2008 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the Scotus was duty bound under the 9th Amendment, not to destroy it, but rather to defend the measure as a right retained by the people.
Not exactly.
Both A4:S2:C1 and the 9th Amendment are in reference to the body of laws, Privileges and Immunities or right, as they were known at the time that the language was Ratified. The 9th speaks of rights retained, not which may be retained.
The requirement that government honor marriage between a man and a woman, and here I’m referring to marriage under the then extent English Common Law and not in reference to requiring state issued licenses which came later in the States, is derived from the P&I of that character.
Now, while it may take effort to show what ARE our P&I it is actually very easy to show what are not P&I, for anything that was illegal among any of the several States when these were Ratified cannot be considered a right retained by the people when they were Ratified ... thus there was not, is not, nor can there ever be a constitutional right to engage in homosexual behavior ... for example.
"It seemed to me just wrong that under the Constitution, over 100,000 adopted children and many yet to be adopted could be the victims of two biological males, one or both of which pretend to be or actually believe they are a female."