A mother and father’s love
Following on then from the last post….
Here we have a judge – who knows what it is he upholds and, therefore, is every bit as complicit no matter what he says he supports – who seems to be speaking up for traditional marriage. Ah! Even the word “traditional” now relegates the idea of a man and woman to an old fashioned concept. And once more, the ONLY sect which appears to be allowed to stick to its traditions without any interference by the state is that of the jews. For example, female genital mutilation, as it is referred to, within Islam is considered, in the west, as an abomination (and it is) but let’s call male genital mutilation “circumcision” and let’s describe all the god reasons for it while, by doing so, suggesting that, in this instance, god just got it wrong. Ah! but circumcision is a jewish practice so then that’s ok and anything and everything the jews say or do is ‘kosher’.
Anyhow, back to the judge.
A judge who calls for the end of family breakdown. Why does it take a judge for one thing? Why do the families themselves simply not ensure that the breakdown doesn’t occur?
And THAT is precisely why the state feels justified in their intervention and control EVEN THOUGH it is the state itself which wants such breakdown. Isn’t that strange when David Cameron would state the opposite?
So who, then, is it who is chastising Sir Paul? And why should judges be “afraid to speak out”? And he was given a “formal warning” for his beliefs in support of traditional marriage? The man is controlled. The judiciary is controlled. The police are controlled. None of them have the “right” to say what they think. WHO is controlling them? Yet it is they, themselves, who support this very control system and carry out the “law” of control which controls them, who dish out that control to others. How can they do this? By what vehicle? From where do they harness that power to do this? From the legal fiction known as the legal person. Each one of them, however, are subject to this same control and when they are confronted by it themselves, they don’t like it.
A “good marriage” my dear Judge, is nothing which you or your peers can ensure. Are you speaking of “Marriage” or a “marriage” between two people? You see, I am sure you speak of the former with a capital M. The sort that you and your like have taken authority over. In taking that authority, you believe you have the authority to influence such. How, however, do you create a good “Marriage” between two people if there is not a good “marriage” between them? Does that even compute with you Paulie?