There is not a lawyer in the United States that agrees with you.
Really? When you did your survey recently of every single lawyer in the United States as to whether or not they agree with "me" (what the OP say and has links to in real law), did you let them read this post and its links? It seems at least that the states of California and New York agree with infants and contract law, as depicted in the OP, and below...
Realizing of course that if one single lawyer agrees with me, or maybe five or twenty, your cult could have a real problem on its hands. If a child, advocate of a child, or guardian of a child or children (orphans) (like a State acting as their custodian or any other custodian) sues for childrens' rights to have been represented at the Obergefell Hearing, you'd better hope your sweeping gaslighting untruth "not a lawyer.." is true.
On contract law and "Infants" re: Obergefell Infants = minors under the legal age of emancipation in any given state.
http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf (pages 2-3)
*******
With little exception, an infant does not have the capacity to bind himself or herself by contract. The infant's contracts are voidable at the infant's election, whether executed or executory. The rationale is that an infant is regarded as not having sufficient capacity to understand and pass upon questions involving contractual rights. Therefore, a person dealing with an infant does so at his or her peril and subject to the right of the infant to avoid the contract. Moreover, and contrary to commonly held beliefs, even approval of the contract by the parent or guardian of an infant does not bind the infant. However, the ratifying party will be bound.
Common law traditionally held that "where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." The modern view is that an infant's contract is voidable by the infant, regardless of whether it appears (at least in part) to be beneficial to the infant...."
*******
We have the gay lobby claiming that married gays provide a necessity to adoptable infants. The Prince's Trust begs to differ (see OP for link). Here is the New York requirement where an adult claims they provide a necessity to an infant, where that infant is bound to the adult's "contract" with them for that alleged necessity.
The contracts of minors or infants are not void, but voidable at the infant’s election. 66 N.Y. Jur. 2d § 7 (2000). While contracts made by an infant are ordinarily voidable at his or her election, contracts for necessities are excepted from this rule. I
n an action against an infant upon a contract made by the infant allegedly for necessities, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that what he or she agreed to provide to the infant was a necessity. 66 N.Y. Jur. 2d § 20 (2000).
Service Contracts with Minors
Bear in mind here that if there is a question, like depriving a child of a mother or father for life with the radical contract revision that Obergefell was on marriage and adoption rights re marriage specifically, the burden is upon that adult or those adults who claim the child is bound to that (brand new) contract because they allege it provides a necessity to them.
However, it will be a cold day in hell when you find a court or tribunal finding that depriving a child of either a father or mother for life constitutes "a necessity" to that child. Read more on that failed argument here:
PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
In any event, that argument, which should have been had at Obergefell Hearing, did not happen. Instead we find that five people ripped away an infant's right to disaffirm or to not disaffirm to their benefit, the original meaning of the word "marriage" for their benefit. Which, as I remind the readers here again, existed to their benefit for THOUSANDS of years with BILLIONS of people assenting and confirming its validity. All that benefit and enjoyment of a contract originally conceived of directly to place children with the social advantage of having BOTH a mother AND a father, was ripped away without infants' input as a contemporary favor to the loud and pernicious gay lobby in June 2015 BY JUST FIVE PEOPLE. No burden was placed upon the gays seeking to deprive the absent party to the marriage contract of how a radical revision provided a "necessity" to them.
And for that reason alone, among the other two noted in the OP, the Obergefell Hearing was a mistrial purely on violation of contract law as to infants.
