(1) Const is a living document but it “doesn’t change with the ebb and low of economic events.
(2) Adkins should be affirmed. Adkins is good law. Facts of this case is identical with Adkins and therefore, should be dismissed.
(3) Doesn’t recognize gender as anything that can disadvantage the ability to enter into a K. Women don’t need additional State protection. (contrary to Muller v. Oregon with the “vigorous offspring”).