Marriage Defenders

With Justice for ALL (quote from the pledge of allegience U.S.A.)

This is an informational website offering support not legal advise

Washington State Request for Reconsideration Case G - 1999

A.  REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Issues to be reconsidered

1. Reconsideration 1: Mrs. G's Constitutional Rights have been violated.  She asks the Appeals Court to reconsider its decision based on the no fault laws being a violation of Article One Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution and the 9th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the US Civil Rights Code, Section 1983. (Reconsideration One)

2. Reconsideration 2: Mrs. G's Constitutional Rights have been violated and she asks the Appeals Court to reconsider it decision based on Article One Section 2 of the Washington State Constitution and RCW 4.04.010. Both of which state that the Common Law "shall be the rule of decision in all courts" (Reconsideration Two)

3. Reconsideration 3: Mrs. G's Constitutional Rights have been violated and she asks the Appeals Court to reconsider it decision based on Article One Sections 3 and 8, Article 2 Section 24, and Article 4 Section 6 of the Washington State Constitution. (Reconsideration Three)

4.Reconsideration 4: Mrs. G's Constitutional Rights have been violated and asks she the Appeals Court to reconsider its decision based on Article 1 Section 23 of the Washington State Constitution and Article 1 Section 10 Clause One of the United States Constitution. (Reconsideration Four)

5. Reconsideration 5: Mrs. G's Constitutional Rights have been violated and she asks the Appeals Court to reconsider it decision based on Article 1 Sections 12, 21, and 22, of the Washington State Constitution. (Reconsideration Five)

6. Reconsideration 6: Mrs. G's Constitutional Rights have been violated and she asks the Appeals Court to reconsider its decision based on Article 1 Section 28 and 32 of the Washington State Constitution. (Reconsideration Six)

B. Statement of Case
	See pages 7-15 of original appellant brief. Mrs. G in the original case stated that her Constitutional rights had been violated. The court is asked to reconsider its decision in this case and to address the specific violations of Mrs. Gs Constitutional Rights so that she may narrow her issues and assignment of errors, should she have to request a Review by the Washington State Supreme Court.

C. Summary of Argument
	Mrs. Gs Constitutional Rights under the Washington State Constitution and the United States Constitution have been violated and she seeks to have the court uphold and protect her rights guaranteed by these two documents.

D. Issues for Reconsideration 
Reconsiderations
1.Reconsideration 1: Article One Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution states "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." 		
Mr. and Mrs. G both have a fundamental right under the US Constitution to get married Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12.  In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, the Court, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, stated: "While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also [for example,] the right . . . to marry, establish a home and bring up children . . .."
	Under Article One Section I of the Washington State Constitution and the 9th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution these rights are to be protected and maintained by the government.  Unless it can be shown that Mr. or Mrs. G committed some crime that would allow the state to deprive them of a Constitutionally protected right.
	In Paragraph 28 the appeals court basically said that Mr. and Mrs. G both have the Right under the laws of Washington State to ask for a no fault divorce, and to be granted a unilateral divorce, so her claim of a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment can not prevail. However, the state cannot allow Mr. G under the color of statute to simply deprive Mrs. G of a fundamental right with out proving in a court of law that Mrs. G has injured him and the court should grant him remedy. Mr. G also has to prove that he is asking for remedy and that he has clean hands, the maxim of the law to the effect that any person, individual or corporate, that wishes to ask or petition a court for judicial action, must be in a position free of fraud or other unfair conduct. Or in other words that he is the lesser guilty party and so should be given remedy.
	The Appeals Court in paragraph 26 stated, "There are no defenses". Not only is this a violation of Mrs. G's  9th and 14th Amendment Rights under the US Constitution and Article One Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution, it is a violation of U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99  "Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress"	
	It is abhorrent to the Constitution of the United States to have a fundamental right that is not protected and in fact taken away without Due Process, by the very government the people trust to insure and protect these rights. The Court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105. The state of Washington is telling Mrs. G that she cannot protect or defend her fundamental marriage rights.
	Further, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that: "One's right to life, liberty, and property . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." And in Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, 736-737, "A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that be." The No Fault laws infringe on Mrs. Gs fundamental right of marriage, and the court can not without completely violating the Constitution of the United States and the State of Washington not allow her to protect and defend against that right being taken away from her without her consent or proof of wrong doing on her part.
	The courts reliance on Maynard v. Hill as controlling on marriage is abrogated by later Supreme Court rulings that say that marriage isn't just a social relationship it is a fundamental right protected by the 9th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution against abridgment by the federal or state governments. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), and Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). 06/07/65 Griswold et al. v. Connecticut, Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, Turner et al. v. Safley et al 482 U.S. 78 (1987) where it states that even prisoners have constitutionally protected marital relationship rights. The Constitution also extends special safeguards to the privacy of the home, just as it protects other special privacy rights such as those of marriage, procreation, motherhood, child rearing, and education. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453-454

2. Reconsideration 2: Mrs. G asks the Appeals Court to reconsider it decision based on Article One Section 2 of the Washington State Constitution and RCW 4.04.010. Both of which state that the Common Law "shall be the rule of decision in all courts". History has taught us that the great and mighty Roman Empire failed.  History also tells us that those that fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it. Our forefathers chose to have our legal system and government based on Common Law not the Civil Law administered in the Roman Empire.  
	Under Civil Law (Roman Law) according to The Institutes, 535 CE, IX. Marriage, or matrimony was a binding together of a man and woman to live in an indivisible union and was only allowed with the consent of the parents.
	However, over the course of time this changed and  "'Marriage in the later Republic and Empire was always consensual, that is, by agreement. It existed if the man and woman intended their relationship to be a marriage (and had the necessary parental consent, etc.), symbolized usually by the husband carrying her over the threshold of his house or flat. It ended when one or both of them ceased to have this (firm) intention. Notification (repudium) meant telling the other party that the notifier no longer had the intention to be married, whereupon divorce took effect without more formality. Divorce (divertere) means going one's own way, and since if one spouse goes his or her own way, they are no longer going the same way, either spouse could divorce the other (and originally either spouse's father could do so if the child remained in his power). There was no requirement of mutual consent to divorce, and it made no legal difference.' (Honor‚ 1991). 
	The No-Fault divorce laws of Washington State are an exact copy of the Roman divorce laws and as such are a violation of the US Constitution and the Washington State Constitution that says that our government and our laws are based on Common Law not Roman Civil Law. 

3. Reconsideration 3: Mrs. G asks the Appeals Court to reconsider it decision based on Article One Sections 3 and 8, Article 2 Section 24, and Article 4 Section 6 of the Washington State Constitution. 
	In Paragraph 26 the court stated that Mrs. G was not deprived of Due Process "because the court is authorized to delay the decree for no more then 60 days of counseling".  Mrs. G requested counseling at the hearing on October 31, 1997 and the request was ignored.  Reference Clerks Papers 00045 - 00047.
	Due Process requires the court to have jurisdiction to hear the case. According to Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition page 851 Judicial Power "1. The authority vested in courts and judges to hear and decide cases and to make binding judgments on them; the power to construe and apply the law when controversies arise over what has been done or not done under it." In other words a judicial question has been raised by one of the parties. Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition Page 852 Judicial question " A question that is proper for determination by the courts, as opposed to a moot question or one properly decided by the executive or legislative branch".
	Since no fault does not require the court to look at any controversies between the parties it has no jurisdiction to make a judgment on a divorce case. In paragraph 27 the court stated, " Mr. G alleged in his pleadings and then testified at trial that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The judge then had no further function in evaluating that evidence except to find the statutory elements satisfied".  If this is true then the no fault laws are simply a cleverly disguised violation of Article 2 Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, which prohibits the legislature from granting divorces. 
	Further, if we accept the courts statement that once a person pleads and testifies, the court has no other function then to believe them to be honest and truthful and render a decision in their favor. We then under equal rights must render innocent every person accused of a crime if they plead and testify that they are innocent.  And determine that every man who claims not to be a father of a child is telling the truth and so does not owe child support.
	The courts with all due respect have been remiss in not having a judicial review of the no fault divorce laws as Article 4 Section 6 of the Washington State Constitution states that the courts not the legislature have jurisdiction over divorces. 
	According to paragraph 26 the only thing a judge can determine is how long before a divorce is granted not whether it will or will not be granted. 	
	Further, the no fault divorce laws are a violation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Washington State Constitution, which states, "No law granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise or immunity, shall be passed by the legislature." The no fault divorce laws have given Mr. G and anyone else seeking a unilateral divorce an irrevocable privilege of having the court always decide in their favor and immunity from having to prove a reason for terminating the marital rights of their spouses.

4. Reconsideration 4: Mrs. G asks the Appeals Court to reconsider its decision based on Article 1 Section 23 of the Washington State Constitution and Article 1 Section 10 Clause One of the United States Constitution. 
	In paragraph 18 the Appeals Court relied on Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S. Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888) as the justification for state control of marriage and divorce. The Maynard v. Hill case and those that followed siting Maynard v. Hill for the states power over divorce have been rendered moot by the 9th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article 31 Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution. 
	The Maynard v. Hill decision said that marriage could not be protected by Article One Section 10 Clause One of the United States Constitution and so was subject to state control.  Justice Fields, however, failed to explain why Article One Section 10 of the United States Constitution could not protect a marriage contact. 
	The reason that a marriage contract could not be protected by Article One Section 10 is because women did not have the right to contract in 1888 when this decision was rendered. Women were considered under an infirmity of sex and not only could not enter into a binding contract, they could not write a will, vote, hold public office, get a loan, serve on a jury, use birth control, serve in the military, go to service academies, universities, medical or law schools, enter into any chosen profession, determine the number of hours they could work outside the home, or just conduct routine business unimpaired by laws passed to "protect" this weaker sex by the "wiser" male legislators. 
	Under the Fourteenth Amendment, freedom of contract is guaranteed. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.s. 578, 589; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.s. 366, 390; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.s. 45, 53; Adair v. United States, 208 U.s. 161, 172.
	In Allied structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus 438 U.S. 234 (1978) "The severity of an impairment of contractual obligations can be measured by the factors that reflect the high value the Framers placed on the protection of private contracts. Contracts enable individuals to order their personal and business affairs according to their particular needs and interests. Once arranged, those rights and obligations are binding under the law, and the parties are entitled to rely on them." 
	In Williams v. Fears 179 U.S. 270 (1900) the court said that the right to contract was  "the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful Conclusion the purposes above mentioned; . . . although it may be conceded that this right to contract in relation to persons or property or to do business within the jurisdiction of the State may be regulated and sometimes prohibited when the contracts or business conflict with the policy of the State as contained in its statutes." Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589, 591; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366." 
	Washington State has regulated who can enter into a binding marriage contract, the age, the degree of affinity, the purchase of a license, and the requirement of solemnization either through a civil or religious ceremony. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 988 a marriage license is "A document, issued by a public authority, that grants a couple permission to marry". The state in giving permission is saying that the couple has met the requirements to enter into a binding marriage contract and are giving their permission to enter into a marriage contract. The license is not the contract simply permission to enter into a contract. The terms of the contract are the terms of the solemnization and as recorded on the marriage certificate. Again Black's Law Marriage Certificate "A document that is executed by the religious or civil official presiding at a marriage ceremony and filed with a public authority (usu. the county clerk) as evidence of the marriage".  In other words the Marriage Certificate is a public document that proves the marriage contract between the parties as either religious or civil. The requirement of solemnization and of witnesses was to prove beyond any doubt that the marriage was agreed to, the terms of the contract are verbally spoken for all to hear and witness, this constitutes a valid contract under the law which then becomes protected under Article One Section 10 Clause One and the states can pass no laws which alter or vary that contract without the consent of the parties or without the state showing a compelling state interest in seeing that particular contract voided.
	Again in Allied structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus 438 U.S. 234 (1978) the court said, " Historically, it is crystal clear that the Contract Clause was not intended to embody a broad constitutional policy of protecting all reliance interests grounded in private contracts. It was made part of the Constitution to remedy a particular social evil -- the state legislative practice of enacting laws to relieve individuals of their obligations under certain contracts -- and thus was intended to prohibit States from adopting "as policy the repudiation of debts or the destruction of contracts or the denial of means to enforce them," Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 439 (1934)." This decision also outlines the limits on the police power of the state regarding the Contract Clause and it is clear that the states do not have the power under the Contract Clause to alter or vary the binding marriage contracts entered into legally in the state.
	The court has held that where certain "fundamental rights" are involved regulations limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest,  Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 485; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1940); see Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 460, 463-464.  Several decisions of the Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541
	The marriage contract the Gs agreed on was the religious one of a covenant marriage. This contract then becomes protected not only by Article One Section 10 of the US Constitution but also the 9th and 14th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment. The state authorized the Gs to enter into a binding marriage contract and to decide if the terms of the contract would be religious or civil. 
	The state granted the Gs the right to enter into a binding religious marriage contract, which cannot be altered or varied by any, laws and is further protected by the establishment clause. In paragraph 17 the Appeals Court referred to the 3-part test for determining the constitutionality of a statute under the establishment clause. This test would seem to further her argument and not fail as the Appeals Court said. First the 3-part test says there must be a secular legislative purpose. The right to marry is a secular purpose, part two of the test say "the statue's principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhabit religion" by allowing people to enter into a marriage contract either through a religious or civil ceremony the state is not advancing or inhabiting religion as it is up the parties to determine the type of contact, i.e. religious or civil. However, once the state has granted the parties permission to enter into a religious contract of marriage the state cannot say it didn't mean it and it really was only a civil ceremony with no religious protection under the 1st Amendment.		
	The addition to the religious protection due a religious verses a civil marriage contract places an even higher bar on the state to prove a compelling state interest in the divorce which infringes on the covenant marriage contract of the couple. Without mutual consent the grounds for desolation of the marriage between Mr. and Mrs. G are those to be found in the religious text that they agreed to not in the civil courts. The civil courts jurisdiction of a contract is in enforcement and in remedy for the breech of the contract by one party and the remedy afforded for such breech.
	For a religious or civil marriage contract the terms of the contract are stated by the person solemnizing the marriage and repeated by the parties to the contract. These terms are agreed to by the parties prior to the actual ceremony and are verbally expressed and witnessed in the solemnization of the marriage contract.  If parties to a marriage contract want to include terms for the desolation of the marriage that are mutually agreed to and incorporated into the ceremony/contract then they have a right to do so as long as it is not repugnant to the Constitutions of the U.S. or State Constitutions. The Gs agreed that their marriage could only be terminated by the death of one party to the marriage. It is not up to the legislature or the courts to determine whether this is a reasonable condition for these two people to terminate their contract it is not repugnant to the Constitution or illegal. The parties entered into the contract with their eyes wide open, there was no mistake and no fraud.
	Mrs. G had a constitutional right to enter into a binding contract with Mr. G. She has the right to expect the government to enforce that contract or to acknowledge a breech of that contact. She has the right to an injunction to prevent her from harm from the breech of a contract if no remedy is available to Mrs. G if Mr. G is allowed by the court to breech the contract. 
	Mr. G entered into the contract and covenant with Mrs. G with his eyes wide open, there was no fraud no decent. He no more has a right to just walk out on that contract then he would to walk out on any other binding contract just because he wasn't having fun anymore. The law has never said that one person to a contract has a unilateral right to terminate a contact unless specifically stated in the terms of the contract. A contract is entered into with the consent of both parties, each has a right under the law to expect it to be honored and upheld by the very government who authorized the parties to enter into the contract and said they would uphold it as valid. 

5. Reconsideration 5: Mrs. G asks the Appeals Court to reconsider it decision based on Article 1 Sections 12, 21, and 22, of the Washington State Constitution.  Section 12 says "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations." 
	Mrs. G was denied the right to defend herself against state action; she was denied the right to a jury trial under Article One Section 21 of the Washington State Constitution.  She was denied the rights afforded by Article One Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution to defend herself, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to testify on her own behalf, she went into court with a gag order issued by the trial judge, she was denied the right of attendance of witnesses who could testify on her behalf. She was denied the judgment of the court when they said they could not do anything but grant the divorce per legislative decree. 
	One would assume that the laws which are designed to protect the criminals against state actions would also protect the law abiding citizens, if not under these articles then under the Equal Protection laws of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

6. Reconsideration 6: Mrs. G asks the appeals court to reconsider its decision based on Article 1 Section 28 and 32 of the Washington State Constitution. The legislature is prohibited from enacting any private or special laws in the following cases "17. For limitation of civil or criminal actions". 
	There is no doubt that the legislature has not just limited but has abolished defenses under the common law for divorces, such as recrimination in violation of this Article as well as Article One section 32  "A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government. " 
	The fundamental principals of marriage and fault based divorce as an action meets the "security of individual right." Seeley v. State, 940 P.2d 604, 132 Wash.2d 776 (Wash. 07/24/1997)  "the notion of fundamental principles was central to natural law theories at the time [the constitution was adopted]. That the principles are not spelled out further indicates that the framers looked to other non-governmental sources for the origin of the rights listed in the constitution." Such as Common Law which derived from Cannon Law.
	And in Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington v. America, No. 66831-1 (Wash. 11/09/2000) the court said of police power " "It exists without express declaration, and the only limitation upon it is that it must reasonably tend to correct some evil or promote some interest of the state, and not violate any direct or positive mandate of the constitution." Shea, 185 Wash. at 153. However, as noted in Conger v. Pierce County, 116 Wash. 27, 35-36, 198 P. 377 (1921), the police power is not unlimited and, when stretched too far, is a power "most likely to be abused." In Conger, an early Washington case which determined a county had exceeded the scope of the police power, this court said: {The police power} has been defined as an inherent power in the state which permits it to prevent all things harmful to the comfort, welfare and safety of society. It is based on necessity. It is exercised for the benefit of the public health, peace and welfare." 
	The idea that No Fault divorce was a reasonable act to correct some evil is misguided. In a divorce case where both people did not agree to the divorce (or to alter or vary the marriage contract) one party had to prove that the other party had breached the contract and so should be granted a divorce. Because the courts refused to recognize the rights of parties to contract under the 9th and 14th Amendment for their marriage contracts the parties could not mutually agree to alter or vary the contract without making up causes. There were and still are those few couples that do both want and seek to alter or vary their marriage contract or even terminate it. However, between 70-90% of the divorces under no fault are not mutual but unilateral. The law that was an attempt to correct the injustice of a few is now a law that is unjust to the majority and as such can not be a reasonable act of the police power of the state. Had the legislatures and courts simply applied the rules of contract law to marriages there would have been no need for the no fault divorce laws to protect the parties who mutually wanted their contract altered or varied.
	The state and federal courts have routinely stated that marriage is in the best interest of society, which is why it is a fundamental right.  If marriage is good for our society and the opposite of marriage is divorce then divorce cannot be in the best interest of society. Can anyone reasonably argue that children are better off now then they were before the advent of no fault divorce. Thirty years ago it was rare for a child to be from a broken home, today we are approaching 75 % of our children being raised in a home without one of their natural parents due to divorce. 
	The fundamental principal of family has been destroyed by the no fault divorce laws. It is teaching our children that personal happiness is more important then vows, parental responsibility, family or society. How will we ever convince our children to go to war to protect a government and a nation that failed to protect them as children from the trauma of divorce? Recent studies have proven that divorce is not in the best interest of the children. It is in the best interest of the child to be raised in an intact family with both natural mother and natural father, the state as parens patriae has failed to protect these children and in fact has added to their numbers by granting no fault divorces.
	" Indeed, as youngsters then and as adults now, all would be profoundly astonished to learn that any judge, attorney, mediator --- indeed, anyone at all-- 
had genuinely considered their best interests or wishes at the breakup or at any time since. It's the many years living in a post divorce or remarried family that count, according to this first generation to come of age and tell us their experiences. "It's traveling on airplanes alone when you're seven to visit your parent. It's having no choice about how you spend your time and feeling like a second-class citizen compared with your friends in intact families who have some say about how they spend their weekends and their vacations. It's wondering whether you will have any financial help for college from your college-educated father, given that he has no legal obligation to pay. It's worrying about your mom and dad for years--will her new boyfriend stick around, will his new wife welcome you into her home?......Not one of the men or women from divorce families whose lives I report on in this book wanted their children to repeat their childhood experiences. Not one ever said, "I want my children to live in two nests--or two villas"  Judith S. Wallerstien The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce A 25 year landmark study.
	To end this cycle of destruction the courts have to start to recognize the marriage contract as a binding contract entered into for the welfare of society and for the third party beneficiaries of the contract, the children. The courts can not continue to allow one person to place their individual happiness above the contract they agreed to, the vows they took, the welfare they owe to their spouse and children and to society. How can anyone justify the scales of justice where on one side you have a person who wants to get out of a contract and obligations because of unproven reasons outweighing the spouse, children and needs of society for an intact family on the other. Over and over the wisdom of our forefathers has been proven, when they recognized that the right to contract to protect vital interests was necessary for social order. The failure of our legal system to uphold valid marriage contracts against legislative interference has led to the decline of our social order the basic unit of which is the family.


E.  CONCLUSION
	Mrs. G asks the court to follow the Constitutions of the State of Washington and of the United States and enforce her contract with Mr. G. 

It is well established that the legal marriage between Mr. C G and Mrs. S G is valid until all litigation is concluded.

She further requests that the court issue an injunction preventing Mr. G from any further attempts to unilaterally terminate their binding marriage contract and covenant.


Respectfully submitted by  ___________________________
S. G.  - Pro Se
1-23-01

 

ShalomRefuge.com or ShalomRefuge.com is not responsible for any opinions expressed on this site.

E-mail Web Master - MarriageDefenders@comcast.net

Return to Main Site Index Biblical Aspects