All Constitutional Case Law can be located here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2022/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2022.pdf

Constitutional Case Law comes before all laws.

For instance:

A state cannot require a license and charge a fee for a right. Most use this for driving and confusing travel with operating vehicle which is a privilege. Marriage is a right. This state may not take away the right based on a marriage “LICENSE” and after a fee is paid. That is unconstitutional. When two people take vows and acknowledge and present themselves to others as married, no one can say otherwise. The license is not a marriage. The license is unconstitutional attempt to take away a right.

Under equal protections who, how, and when is irrelevant. Facts: marriage license is unconstitutional. Government is interfering in religious beliefs and licensing and charging fees for that right. Now equality means how we argue is irrelevant. Who or how a citizen actually argues is irrelevant since they cannot be discriminated based on sex, so is that right based on sex? Females dont have right to vet married or men? Or are we saying our religious beliefs not other beliefs dictate who a citizen can be married to? These are rights protects by the constitution and should be enforced if an individual believes their rights are being violated. 

Following are options for arguing numerous constitutional rights of individuals that are being harmed or discriminated by said laws:

LGBTQ Citizen Rights

Amdt1.8.5 Intimate Association
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance. 

While the previous sections have focused on expressive association, the Constitution also protects certain forms of “intimate association.”1 These protections primarily extend from the personal liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the FourteenthAmendment,2 which the Court has construed to include an implied “right of personal privacy.”3 The relationships “entitled to this sort of constitutional protection” are “those that attend the creation and sustenance of a family,”4 including those formed through marriage,5 childbirth,6 child-rearing,7 and “cohabitation with one’s relatives.”8 Those constitutional liberties are discussed more fully elsewhere in the Constitution Annotated.9
Infrequently, the Supreme Court has considered the degree to which the First Amendment may also protect association in family and intimate relationships. In Lyng v. International Union, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to a federal law that denied eligibility or food stamps while any member of a household was on strike.10The Court reasoned that the law did not violate the freedom of association of close relatives because it did not “directly and substantially interfere with family living arrangements.”11

 1 Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984).

2 Although the Court has characterized the right of intimate association as having FirstAmendment dimensions,
it has not recognized any intimate relationships that qualify for constitutional protection under the FirstAmendment,
other than those identified in its due process decisions. See See id. at 619–20 (citing due process decisions).

3 Carey v. Population Servs. Int’l, 431 U.S. 678, 684 (1977); see also, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399
(1923) (stating that “[w]ithout doubt,” the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment “denotes not merely
freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual” to marry and to “establish a home and bring up
children”).

 4 Roberts, 468 U.S. at 619.

5 See,e.g., Loving v.Virginia,388 U.S.1,12 (1967) (reasoning that for a state to deny the “fundamental freedom” to
marry on “so unsupportable a basis” as race would “deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of
law”); Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 675 (2015) (holding that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental
right to marry,” that is “inherent in the liberty of the person”).

6 See Carey,431 U.S.at 685 (stating that “the decision whether or not to beget or bear a child is at the very heart”
of choices protected by the right of personal privacy implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment). See Amdt14.S1.6.3.6
Sexual Activity, Privacy, and Substantive Due Process.

7 See, e.g., Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399 (reversing a teacher’s conviction for teaching a student the German language,
reasoning that the prohibition on teaching languages other than English in primary schools interfered with, among
other things, “the power of parents to control the education of their own”).

8 Roberts,468 U.S.at 619.See,e.g.,Moore v.E.Cleveland,431 U.S.494,506 (1977) (holding that an ordinance that
prohibited certain relatives outside of the “nuclear family” from living together violated the Fourteenth Amendment).

9 See Amdt14.S1.6.3.4 Family Autonomy and Substantive Due Process and Amdt14.S1.6.3.5 Marriage and
Substantive Due Process.

10 485 U.S. 360, 362 (1988).

11 Id. at 365–66 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court also held that the law did not violate the
associational rights of the striking worker and the worker’s union.Id. at 366–68.See also Dep’t of Hous.v.Rucker,535
U.S.125,130,136 n.6 (2002) (stating that Lyng “forecloses” tenants’ freedom-of-association challenge against a statute
authorizing local public housing authorities to “evict tenants for the drug-related activity of household members and
guests whether or not the tenant knew, or should have known, about the activity”).

Women Reproductive Rights

 Amdt9.1 Overview of Ninth Amendment, Unenumerated Rights

The Ninth Amendment provides that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution should not be construed to mean that the Constitution does not protect rights that are not enumerated. The Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to address fears that expressly protecting certain rights might be misinterpreted implicitly to sanction the infringement of others.1 

 
Few Supreme Court cases offer significant analysis of the Ninth Amendment. Prior to 1965, litigants occasionally invoked the Amendment, often along with the Tenth Amendment or other provisions of the Bill of Rights, to challenge the constitutionality of government actions, but the Court consistently rejected those claims.2 In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, a majority of the Court cited the Ninth Amendment, along with the substantive rights protected by the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and held that the Constitution protects “penumbral rights of ‘privacy and repose’” that bar a state from prohibiting the use of contraception by married couples.3 By contrast, in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Court grounded a constitutional right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Ninth.4

Overall, the Court has generally treated the Ninth Amendment as a rule of construction for the Constitution rather than a freestanding guarantee of any substantive rights. Thus, in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, a plurality of the Court referred to the Amendment as a “sort of constitutional ‘saving clause,’ which, among other things, would serve to foreclose application to the Bill of Rights of the maxim that the affirmation of particular rights implies
a negation of those not expressly defined.”5

 1 SeeAmdt9.2Historical Background on Ninth Amendment The Tenth Amendment responded to related concerns that including a list of rights in the Constitution might be misunderstood to imply that the national government had powers beyond those enumerated. U.S. CONST. amend. X; see also Tenth Amendment.

2 See generally Amdt9.3 Ninth Amendment Doctrine.

3 381 U.S. 479, 481–85 (1965).

4 410U.S.113(1973),overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No.19-1392, slipop. (U.S. June 2022).

5 448 U.S. 555, 579–80 & n.15 (1980); cf. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 91 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (The Ninth Amendment’s “refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”).

The legal definition of contraception is an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including:

• Using contraceptives, such as birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, or other devices or medications

• Fertility-awareness based methods

• Sterilization procedures

• The term "contraceptive" refers to any drug, device, or biological product used to prevent pregnancy.

The right to contraception is protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court's 1965 landmark decision in Griswold v. Connecticut recognized the right of married people to obtain contraceptives. The Court has also ruled that:

• Minors have a constitutional right to contraception

• Restrictions on contraceptive access can be unconstitutional

Everything was left by others before us to protect these rights for us. It is the duty of the citizens to follow and contribute to what was left before us. These are simple arguments that can be made to protect targeted groups.

Title VI, the Safe Streets Act, and the ADA also prohibit retaliation. Under Title VI, this includes any action to “intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege” under Title VI. 28 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). The ADA similarly prohibits retaliation against anyone who exercises their rights under the ADA or participates in an ADA investigation. 42 U.S.C. § 12203. Individuals who believe that they have been a target of retaliation may file a complaint with DOJ.