"Your rights are given to you by God, the creator. The Constitution is a document that expressly limits the power of the government to subvert, contravene, or otherwise deprive you of your God-given rights. It grants nothing, it is intended to protect all." I agree with your remark stated above.
And so did James Madison, the author of the 9th amendment, to satisfy the concerns of the anti-federalist who would not ratify the U.S. Constitution as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation until it was inserted into the Bill of Rights.
It behooves all, who believe in liberty, to expand the scope of the 9th amendment as far as possible, to, as you state, "...expressly limit(s) the power of the government..."
Two quick examples that come to my mind are, mandatory seat belt laws/helmet laws and cigarette/cigar prohibition laws, especially enforced on private property.
I hope we would agree.
The kind of laws you cite are states' legislation and, in the original context of the Constitution, exempt from the kind of limits placed on the Congress and the Federal Government by both the ninth and tenth amendments. Only in the context of the corrupt and liberal judiciary's interpretation of the fourteenth amendment can they act upon those laws using the ninth and tenth amendments.
This is the grave error just committed by the Supreme Court in the sodomy law case. However we may feel about states' sodomy laws, their applicability is not subject to the jurisprudence of the Federal Bench. So, in short, I cannot agree that the interpretation of the ninth amendment must be expanded in scope "as far as possible" since a liberal interpretation then permits many frightening side-effects. Someone already mentioned use of the ninth amendment to justify the court's ruling on abortion.
I am no more fond of seat-belt or anti-smoking laws than anyone else. However, I do not believe the Federal Bench is the proper venue for fighting these laws. They are best handled in the local legislature and in the state courts.