Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

[Silhouette]

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:Taxes...Penalties...Bank regulations....Military....Necessaries
For instance, perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. Contracts of Minors

This could create a HUGE problem for Obergefell and other "affirmations" of disaffirmation of the marriage contract that children have enjoyed for thousands of years up until the last five or so, at a handful of "judges"...

Marriage is/was a contract created for children thousands of years ago to insure that their parents stayed together, legally bound, for their benefit. Nobody doubts or argues that children come into the world under all manner of circumstances. In fact, that very observation is WHY the marriage contract was created for children in the first place. In a chaotic world where children often were and are the first to suffer the woes of single parenthood, most notably missing a vital parent (opposite gender of the one in their home) for a balance of role modeling and a proper berth into society, marriage was the contract that was the only thing children had to rely on to bring them this necessary duo of adults to watch over them and model for them silently and outspoken on a daily basis.

Everyone, for thousands of years, understood this, knew this implicitly. (The implied and binding contract, affirmed). And in fact it was why states gave rewards to married men/women: to entice the biggest number of mother/father pairs to provide homes for either their children, or adopted children from the perils mentioned above. Otherwise, there is no benefit a state derives from two gays shacking up. Two heteros shacking up at least hold the promise of getting married to provide the contractual enjoyments to the contract that children sought to enjoy. Your recent illegal revision of the thousands-years-old contract does not provide a benefit to children, who shared in it. In fact, the new illegal revision provides only a loss to children. A loss of either a vital mother or a vital father FOR LIFE...as a new institution. By the very physical structure of a "gay marriage", it is guaranteed that the child no longer even has a whiff of a hope at gaining a vital mother/father home in which to be raised. Again, infants and contract law (see quote) declares this revision void therefore.

The amicus briefs written by adult children who were raised in gay homes noted this vacuum. They noted the lack of the opposite gender as a parent left them lost, wanting, lacking in various ways. They have spoken. Now it's time for those briefs to have their day in Court. You're all about minorities who are suffering having their day in Court. So this shouldn't bother you at all. In fact, you should be the first one to advocate and support those briefs being examined at a SCOTUS hearing under infants and contract law. (See the quote at top) Children, who can't even vote, have priority as a minority group. And so, they must have their interests in the marriage contract reviewed as a matter of compelling law.. The review is mandatory, not optional. (See quote at top)

Nope. For instance if my employer enters into a contract to buy new computers for my company- even though I will benefit from that contract- I am not a party in that contract

You just make this crap up.

Adults are different. This 'implied-benefit' issue only applies to contracts as they apply to infants involved in them. Adults can create and sever contracts all day long, as long as all parties agree. Infants under contract laws get special unspoken and unwavering protections if a contract benefits them...even if they themselves want to sever it. They can't if the contract benefits them.

For instance, there is an implied contract that children enjoy that says for them to stay in school until...I think it's the 8th grade..it varies from state to state I think... Children, even though they may desperately wish to break that contract, are not allowed to because society found that it benefits them greatly in later life. So they are bound by law to attend school until a given age.

Says you, citing you. You're just making up this nonsense as you go along. And when your logic is demonstrated to be psuedo-legal drivel.....you make up an imaginary 'exception' to your imagination 'requirement'.

None of it is real. None of it is even remotely relevant to the outcome of any case. As the court isn't bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

"Hapless batshit". Is that going to be your legal argument in Court rebutting contract law and infants? I'm not making up the quote on infants and contract law, where contracts or revisions to contracts are void if they are to a child's detriment.

You're beginning to sound like Alice in Wonderland, hoping your alternative reality is really really REALLY real! After all, given the impact of contract law and infants, that's all you've really got in your cult's defense. That and belittling or beating up those who argue the opposing stance. And that's fine as long as you're an anonymous troll in the internet. But when your "case" steps into a courtroom on this particular question of law, you'd better hope you have more than just verbal berating for your opposition as a substitute for persuasive argument. Because even the infamous Five in SCOTUS will have little tolerance for reverse-bullying on questions involving the well-being of children and their protections in contracts.. Especially while the American public...and indeed the world...looks on in riveted concern..

 

[Skylar]

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:Taxes...Penalties...Bank regulations....Military....Necessaries
For instance, perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. Contracts of Minors

This could create a HUGE problem for Obergefell and other "affirmations" of disaffirmation of the marriage contract that children have enjoyed for thousands of years up until the last five or so, at a handful of "judges"...

Marriage is/was a contract created for children thousands of years ago to insure that their parents stayed together, legally bound, for their benefit. Nobody doubts or argues that children come into the world under all manner of circumstances. In fact, that very observation is WHY the marriage contract was created for children in the first place. In a chaotic world where children often were and are the first to suffer the woes of single parenthood, most notably missing a vital parent (opposite gender of the one in their home) for a balance of role modeling and a proper berth into society, marriage was the contract that was the only thing children had to rely on to bring them this necessary duo of adults to watch over them and model for them silently and outspoken on a daily basis.

Everyone, for thousands of years, understood this, knew this implicitly. (The implied and binding contract, affirmed). And in fact it was why states gave rewards to married men/women: to entice the biggest number of mother/father pairs to provide homes for either their children, or adopted children from the perils mentioned above. Otherwise, there is no benefit a state derives from two gays shacking up. Two heteros shacking up at least hold the promise of getting married to provide the contractual enjoyments to the contract that children sought to enjoy. Your recent illegal revision of the thousands-years-old contract does not provide a benefit to children, who shared in it. In fact, the new illegal revision provides only a loss to children. A loss of either a vital mother or a vital father FOR LIFE...as a new institution. By the very physical structure of a "gay marriage", it is guaranteed that the child no longer even has a whiff of a hope at gaining a vital mother/father home in which to be raised. Again, infants and contract law (see quote) declares this revision void therefore.

The amicus briefs written by adult children who were raised in gay homes noted this vacuum. They noted the lack of the opposite gender as a parent left them lost, wanting, lacking in various ways. They have spoken. Now it's time for those briefs to have their day in Court. You're all about minorities who are suffering having their day in Court. So this shouldn't bother you at all. In fact, you should be the first one to advocate and support those briefs being examined at a SCOTUS hearing under infants and contract law. (See the quote at top) Children, who can't even vote, have priority as a minority group. And so, they must have their interests in the marriage contract reviewed as a matter of compelling law.. The review is mandatory, not optional. (See quote at top)

Nope. For instance if my employer enters into a contract to buy new computers for my company- even though I will benefit from that contract- I am not a party in that contract

You just make this crap up.

Adults are different. This 'implied-benefit' issue only applies to contracts as they apply to infants involved in them. Adults can create and sever contracts all day long, as long as all parties agree. Infants under contract laws get special unspoken and unwavering protections if a contract benefits them...even if they themselves want to sever it. They can't if the contract benefits them.

For instance, there is an implied contract that children enjoy that says for them to stay in school until...I think it's the 8th grade..it varies from state to state I think... Children, even though they may desperately wish to break that contract, are not allowed to because society found that it benefits them greatly in later life. So they are bound by law to attend school until a given age.

Says you, citing you. You're just making up this nonsense as you go along. And when your logic is demonstrated to be psuedo-legal drivel.....you make up an imaginary 'exception' to your imagination 'requirement'.

None of it is real. None of it is even remotely relevant to the outcome of any case. As the court isn't bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

"Hapless batshit". Is that going to be your legal argument in Court rebutting contract law and infants?

Same spamming. Same debunked pseudo-legal nonsense. As the same holes that killed your argument before are the same holes that kill it now. The obligation to care for your kids is the product of parenthood. Not marriage. You can tell as the obligation to provide the necessary subsistence, health, comfort, etc for your children.....extends even if you get divorced. It exists even if you've never gotten married.

Its not the product of marriage. Killing your latest piece of pseudo-legal gibberish yet again. With the fact that children aren't married to their parents killing it again.

Your argument is a layer cake of nonsensical, imaginary gibberish.

There's a reason why your every prediction of a legal outcome has been wrong: you keep citing your imagination and ignoring the law. There's a reason why my predictions on the Obergefell case were spot on. I keep citing the law and ignoring your imagination.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show in the law where a marriage of parents is a 'minor contract' for their kids.

I won't hold my breath. And when you fail at that, we'll move on to the Obergefell ruling.....which had nothing to do with contract law. But 14th amendment violations.

Remember, you can ignore the basis of the Obergefell ruling and imagine your own. But nothing actually changes just because you close your eyes.

 

[Silhouette]

Were the violations of contract law and infants more severe than the "violations" of denying a waffling small group of deviant sex behaviors "special class protection" under the Constitution without that new addition to It (brand new protections for behaviors) being ratified by the Legislature...an instead, ratified by the Judicial Branch?

That will be the question of "Infants vs Obergefell"...Pray you have your decent and good arguments ready..

 

[Skylar]

Were the violations of contract law and infants more severe than the "violations" of denying a waffling small group of deviant sex behaviors "special class protection" under the Constitution without that new addition to It (brand new protections for behaviors) being ratified by the Legislature...an instead, ratified by the Judicial Branch?

What violation of 'contract law and infants'?

See, you imagine a violation, imagine that children are married to their parents, imagine that children weren't taken into account in the Obergefell ruling, even imagine Entertainment law is marriage law.

But it isn't. None of it. You're literally imagining your own version of the law while ignoring the actual law. And as your perfect record of failure in predicting the outcome of any case demonstrates.......citing your imagination is gloriously irrelevant.

That will be the question of "Infants vs Obergefell"...Pray you have your decent and good arguments ready..

No such case. You're still hallucinating.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:Taxes...Penalties...Bank regulations....Military....Necessaries
For instance, perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. Contracts of Minors

This could create a HUGE problem for Obergefell and other "affirmations" of disaffirmation ..

No problem at all.

The Supreme Court has ruled.

You stomping your feet is not a 'huge problem'

 

[Syriusly]

That will be the question of "Infants vs Obergefell"...Pray you have your decent and good arguments ready..

Which infants do you imagine will be suing Jim Obergefell?

 

[Silhouette]

Its not the product of marriage. Killing your latest piece of pseudo-legal gibberish yet again. With the fact that children aren't married to their parents killing it again.

The original contract created thousands of years ago did "marry" children to their parents. It's why custody battles are so difficult. The implied understanding of that ancient contract,( most very recently revised without all parties at the table, to infants' collective demise,) was that children were THE reason the marriage contract was invented and sustained for millennia. That contract was implicitly, overtly and obtusely for their massive enjoyment of having both a mother and father in the home as mentors and providers for the boys and girls who society expected/expects to arrive. Two women cannot teach a boy how to be a man. Two men cannot teach a girl how to be a woman. The two genders carry fundamentally different innate drives, motivations and issues both mental and physical that require that knowing ear and eye of daily guidance.

The tragedy of single parent homes is remedied by the enticement society put forth in marriage. Now, that tragedy (missing one of the vital parents) has become an imposition of law upon infants, without their input or assent.

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court has ruled.

Here's a typical conversation with LGBT troll-blogger "Syriusly"...or Skylar....or mdk...or ...you know the group....

Sil: "The Supreme Court's Obergefell Hearing was improper because it was a revision of a contract that excluded infants' representation at the Hearing. Infants are implied parties to the marriage contract. It was why that contract was created over a thousand years ago".

Syriusly: "The Supreme Court has ruled, so contract law and infants doesn't matter in this case."

Sil: "So are you saying contract and infant law was just substantially changed by Obergefell?"

Syriusly: "No, just in the case of gay marriage."

Sil: "But you realize that a contract is a contract, right?

Syriusly: "No, all laws bend and contort when gays want something. If the laws prevent that goal, we just have judges sympathy for us make singular exceptions just for our behavioral group newly ratified "as a class" added to the 14th Amendment without the participation of the Legislative Branch."

Remade laws for LGBT convenience in Obergefell:

1. Infants and contracts. (and all other infants and contract law)

2. Separation of Powers. (and all other incidents where (just five people in) the Judicial wants to change the Constitution outside Congress)

 

[Silhouette]

It's weird on how all other threads on the LGBT agenda, this one is indefensible with insults and ad hominems..

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court has ruled.

Here's a typical conversation with LGBT troll-blogger "Syriusly"...or Skylar....or mdk...or ...you know the group....
)

Here is a typical post by homophobic hate monger Silhouette

Silhouette: lie.....followed by lie.....followed lie....

Ending with another lie.

 

[Syriusly]

It's weird on how all other threads on the LGBT agenda, this one is indefensible with insults and ad hominems..

What is weird is how all of your threads are just different variations on "Why Silhouette hates gays"

 

[Syriusly]

Its not the product of marriage. Killing your latest piece of pseudo-legal gibberish yet again. With the fact that children aren't married to their parents killing it again.

The original contract created thousands of years agot.

There is no original contract created thousands of years ago.

Once again- The Constitution is superior to your imaginary contract law.

 

[mdk]

It's weird on how all other threads on the LGBT agenda, this one is indefensible with insults and ad hominems..

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court has ruled.

Here's a typical conversation with LGBT troll-blogger "Syriusly"...or Skylar....or mdk...or ...you know the group....

Sil: "The Supreme Court's Obergefell Hearing was improper because it was a revision of a contract that excluded infants' representation at the Hearing. Infants are implied parties to the marriage contract. It was why that contract was created over a thousand years ago".

Syriusly: "The Supreme Court has ruled, so contract law and infants doesn't matter in this case."

Sil: "So are you saying contract and infant law was just substantially changed by Obergefell?"

Syriusly: "No, just in the case of gay marriage."

Sil: "But you realize that a contract is a contract, right?

Syriusly: "No, all laws bend and contort when gays want something. If the laws prevent that goal, we just have judges sympathy for us make singular exceptions just for our behavioral group newly ratified "as a class" added to the 14th Amendment without the participation of the Legislative Branch."

Remade laws for LGBT convenience in Obergefell:

1. Infants and contracts. (and all other infants and contract law)

2. Separation of Powers. (and all other incidents where (just five people in) the Judicial wants to change the Constitution outside Congress)

which infants do you imagine will be suing Jim Obergefell?

 

[Skylar]

Its not the product of marriage. Killing your latest piece of pseudo-legal gibberish yet again. With the fact that children aren't married to their parents killing it again.

The original contract created thousands of years ago did "marry" children to their parents.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless. Worse for you, its irrelevant. As our laws are not predicated upon nor bound to what folks did in grass huts thousands of years ago.

Sil, none of your babble matters. You keep offering up your imagination on topics you don't understand, terms you don't comprehend, and made up 'requirements' that simply don't exist. And none of your pseudo-legal gibberings have the slightest relevance to anyone's marriage. Its effects nothing, it impacts the outcome of no case, it predicts nothing.

You might as well be telling us your favorite flavor of ice cream.

 

[mdk]

You might as well be telling us your favorite flavor of ice cream.

I think you can cross rainbow sherbet off that list.

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court has ruled.

Here's a typical conversation with LGBT troll-blogger "Syriusly"...or Skylar....or mdk...or ...you know the group....

Sil: "The Supreme Court's Obergefell Hearing was improper because it was a revision of a contract that excluded infants' representation at the Hearing. Infants are implied parties to the marriage contract. It was why that contract was created over a thousand years ago".

More pseudo-legal gibberish.

1) Obergefell wasn't about contract law. It was about 14th amendment violations of the right to equal protection under the law and due process. Exactly as we told you it would be. Rendering all your babble moot.

2) There's no requirements that 'infants' have 'representation' lest the case be a 'mistrial'. Hearings aren't trials. And *individuals* have representation in them. Not age groups. Rendering your silliness moot again.

3) No infant is married to their parents. Rendering all your silly gibbering about 'implied contracts' more useless nonsense from a person that has no idea what she's talking about.

Once again, you just make up your own version of the law. And then seem confused and confounded when the courts follow the *actual* law rather than whatever pseudo-legal nonsense you've made up.

Get used to it.

 

[Skylar]

Remade laws for LGBT convenience in Obergefell:

1. Infants and contracts. (and all other infants and contract law)

2. Separation of Powers. (and all other incidents where (just five people in) the Judicial wants to change the Constitution outside Congress)

See above for why your 'infants and contracts' nonsense is meaningless gibberish.

And the judicial power includes intepretations of the constitution. With the Obergefell case being the court answering 2 very specific legal questions.

1) Can the States deny a marriage license to same sex couples under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

2) Can states deny the recognition of marriages to same sex couples from other states?

The answer was 'no' and 'no'. That's not a 'separation of powers' issue. That's the judiciary doing exactly what it is supposed to do. The amendments that formed the basis of the Obergefell ruling already exist: the 5th and the 14th.

 

[Spinster]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

Three issues.
1. That same-sex couples did not have standing to challenge the majority rule (minority behaviors cannot have special Constitutional protections)

2. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan were mandated to recuse themselves from the Obergefell Hearing. (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

1. The trouble with deeming a minority behavior that is repugnant to the majority a "protected class" is all the other minority behaviors that are repugnant to the majority that are currently being discriminated against... What makes practitioners of gay sex so important over other acts the majority rejects? Really? Specifically (legally, in the purest sense of fairness and equality) how is this one behavior set above all others?

They will have their day in court too.. There was no protection for human behavior written into the Constitution. Particularly those behaviors repugnant to the majority. The right to kill out of anger, etc. etc. etc. would be a Constitutional right then. Penal and civil laws would cease to have meaning if minority behaviors have protected status.

People are a different matter. But the Justices refusal to see WHAT was petitioning them for "gay marriage" was their critical error in premise. Was it a static legal entity like a race or a gender? Or was it a cult loosely knit around sexual fetish behaviors? There is no binding element to "gays" other than what they do in their bedrooms. Men are friends with and love other men. Women are friends with and love other women. The ones who do this and also opt to have "sex" with the same gender, are engaging in a behavior that the majority finds repugnant, and the majority found certainly not worthy of the sublime endorsement of "marriage"..

The static vs ephemeral legal status on standing was an error I contend that's due to unravel American law at its foundation. And an error, given

2. Capterton v A.T. Massey Coal (2009), can be reversed inasmuch as two of the Justices responsible for this bungle on American law's bedrock were mandated to recuse themselves from the 2015 gay marriage Hearing. in 2009 Ginsburg herself voted in favor of of any judge, anywhere, anytime, being mandated to recuse themselves from a hearing if they had or displayed a vested interest in the outcome of that Hearing. Both Justices Ginsburg and Kagan presided publicly over gay weddings as Justice of the Peace AS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER STATES ON GAY MARRIAGE WAS PENDING.

As the embodiment of the federal government, even though they presided in states where gay marriage was voted in by the majority, their presence officiating over a gay wedding would cause anyone in the world, anywhere, to absolutely be able to predict how their vote would be cast in the pending Obergefell Hearing. This means re the language and Finding of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, that they were mandated to have recused themselves from the Obergefell Hearing. Which they did not do. Therefore, the Hearing was a mistrial.

3. In the proposed revision of any contract, including the one of marriage, all parties to the contract must be present and sign off on any new revisions. This is particularly true when the revisions are radical and stand to harm especially any missing party to that revision hearing. There is no legal expert that exists on the face of the earth who could successfully argue that children are not implicit sharers in the marriage contract. The marriage contract was born from their interests way back in time immemorial and has persisted for their interests ever since, through multiple millennia up to 2015.

Yet, at the Obergefell Hearing, no attorney for the interest of children to the proposed contractual-revision was present. Children were flatly ignored as to the revision. And this is particularly onerous given that the revision institutionalized motherless or fatherless "marriages" where a child would suffer that loss without hope of the future holding the promise of a mother or father...ever... Single hetero homes at least hold that promise coming. A gay home; particularly a gay married home guarantees the child that deprivation for life.

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN
Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:
[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family....the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children. American College of Pediatricians on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling: ‘A Tragic Day for America’s Children’ - Breitbart

Modifying a Contract after Signing It
Once a contract has been signed, then it typically cannot be changed unless all parties to the contract agree to the modifications....If the contract doesn't address the issue of changes, you'll need to talk to the other parties to the contract, make sure that they agree to the changes, then, to be on the safe side, add a rider (additional section) to the contract that addresses the changes. This rider should be signed by each party to the original contract....There may be instances where all parties to a contract are unable to come to agreement on changes. If that happens, you'll have to live with the original signed agreement, walk away from the contact... Contract Modification

The binding force of a contract is based on the fact that it evinces a meeting of minds of two parties in Good Faith. A contract, once formed, does not contemplate a right of a party to reject it. Contracts that were mutually entered into between parties with the capacity to contract are binding obligations and may not be set aside due to the caprice of one party or the other unless a statute provides to the contrary.... Implied contracts are as binding as express contracts. An implied contract depends on substance for its existence; therefore, for an implied contract to arise, there must be some act or conduct of a party, in order for them to be bound. implied contracts

The "act or conduct" is for thousands of years marriage originated and existed to provide boys and girls with both a mother and father as mentors to fledge them into society. Society is bound by this act and conduct to provide both a mother and father to children unless children say and agree otherwise (see below * )

More from that same link:

*
Infants An infant is defined as a person under the age of 18 or 21, depending on the particular jurisdiction. A contract made by an infant is voidable but is valid and enforceable until or unless he or she disaffirms it. He or she may avoid the legal duty to perform the terms of the contract without any liability for breach of contract. Infants are treated in such a way because public policy deems it desirable to protect the immature and naive infant from liability for unfair contracts that he or she is too inexperienced to negotiate on equal terms with the other party.

So, with marriage contracts, we have a contract created originally and cemented for millennia for the benefit of children. Children had no voice at the revision table that just dissolved that enjoyment without their permission or input. Children did not disaffirm the marriage contract as majority-regulated "man/woman". For that matter, if a gay marriage was ratified in a state without the input of children in some legal forum to disaffirm their enjoyment of having both a mother and father, then those laws are also invalid because of contract law.

So which attorney reading this has the balls to argue that the implied condition of marriage was somehow not to provide children with both a mother and father?

The Obergefell Hearing was the worst type of Kangaroo Court in regards to all of 1, 2 and 3. As to the contract modification, the change was radical and sought to fundamentally deprive one of the key parties to the creation of the contract in the first place of the necessary elements for the very reason the contract was conceived of in the beginning: to provide boys and girls with both mother and father. Not only were the children not invited to the revision table, even when they tried to voice their concerns with amicus briefs, those concerns were wholly ignored and unmentioned. In previous comments from the Justices, "the welfare of children" was conspicuously noted of record and in written Opinion. Yet in the Obergefell Opinion, not a whit of their concern was addressed. This was done as a convenience to gays whom the Court's majority knew could not and would not provide children with what they fundamentally need: BOTH a mother and father in life.

For this purposeful omission of consideration as a politically-expedient favor to the potent and aggressive gay lobby in just Obergefell, where the Justices' "concern for children's wellbeing" went missing, all five of these Justices should be impeached. At the very least, Obergefell should be reheard with a team of attorneys present to represent the rights of children as to the marriage contract.

For more on what happens to children without regular contact with either a mother or father, read this survey, the largest of its kind on youth adjusting to the adult world: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Wow, that's some title Ms. Julie White has, Global Head. Impressive! New one on me. Guess CEO or CFO no longer is good enough.