Think Tank Sinks On Maiden Voyage….
So, Sir Paul Coleridge, who promised to have an intelligent debate on marriage through his newly created family think tank slash lobbying machine, dressed up as a charity, has already sunk his glorious machine, as the first meeting of its kind has been banned by the law society as its programme reflected ‘an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage’.
In an earlier Question It! post we spoke of our scepticism at this think tank being able to gracefully glide through the family law terrain and its monumental stalling at so early a stage confirms what every rational human being in this land knows already – that any judge who professes to be fair and impartial whilst taking up the mantle of marriage should be viewed with suspicion in the first instance.
Family law judges are already viewed in this unfortunate light. Why make it worse with judges whose lack of wisdom and concealed bigotry only heighten such feelings?
When sir Paul Coleridge meant to speak about marriage, he was clearly only referring to the kind he viewed as acceptable. The title for the debate “ One man. One woman. Making the case for marriage, the good of society” makes that very clear. And once again, should judges who are so opposed to a legal right, so entrenched in their views that they actively seek to change the way a nation makes its choices, be allowed to serve the people of this country?
Setting aside the rather childish notion embodied in the debate’s title, what of freedom of speech? Surely, anti-gay marriage judges should be allowed to voice their opinions, to bray at the alter of the law? Well, the Law Society’s response was this: yes, bray all you like, but not on our turf.
And we think they rock.
So, this week our spotlight is on the Law Society. It is not often we give kudos to the legal profession; it is a business, these days without much heart and we find it heart breaking to watch the way the legal industry has evolved sometimes, but the Law Society, to our mind, did the right thing on this occasion and we applaud them.
So, our spotlight this week is on the Law Society – for doing the right thing, in a world where so many things being done, are wrong (like allowing judges to create think tanks to spur their own views into action and one would suppose with more than a hint of likelihood, into law).
Researching Reform 
I’m afraid this only betrays your own biases and prejudices and bigotry Natasha. Clearly you have a particular view on this matter and anyone who disagrees with you is, in your opinion, wrong and open to abusive comments by you.
And the arrogance and conceit of “what every rational human being in this land knows etc.” ~ so everyone who disagress with you is irrational?. I’m sorry to disappoint you but thats not true.
LikeLike
Dear Jarl, thank you for your post. My concern is with judges who must be imapartial to do their work – it is an essential function of their role. I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that I’m bigotted and arrogant, but your response seems emotive. Perhaps I hit a nerve. I would normally apologise for doing so, but you are quite right about one thing – to my mind, anyone who views same sex marriage as ‘wrong’ is, wrong. I will not apologise for disagreeing with that view.
LikeLike
Very nicely put Natasha! As an openly gay solicitor I was delighted to read that The Law Society was standing up for people like me. I will be joining The Law Society group marching in the London World Pride event in July.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment and your encouragement, Keith and I hope the march goes well.
LikeLike
I have myself been before enough PRFD and Court of Appeal judges to know they are quite an antiquated and dogmatic bunch, Coleridge included. For somebody who chose to make a career out of the complexities of separating families and their child wars to now espouse marriage when and only when it suits the political landscape seems to me to be a touch of opportunism. When the traditional family unit is used as the only positive outcome template for children, Coleridge is even wider of the mark – it ignores the empirical evidence that children raised in substantially shared parenting arrangements fare just as well, after an initial downwards blip at the point of family separation. But as the Office of Judicial Complaints once informed me: “Judges have no obligation to consult or abide by the findings of research.” Proper shared parenting arrangements starting at parental splits of 35-65% are exactly what the family judiciary deliberately avoid, regardless of research, likely outcome, common-sense or ‘best interests of the child.’ The message is clear; if non resident parents want to see their kids, get and stay married, whilst incentivising divorce with biased decisions in family courts.
Promoting marriage might reduce divorce – and for that reason the Law Society will shoot down any initiative that may lessen their members’ endless transfer of private and public wealth into their own pockets. When it comes to money, they’ll happily stab their own in the back. Whilst admittedly, the promotion of marriage could better be marketed by someone other than Coleridge, the principal itself is laudable, and credit where it is due. Why anybody should dismiss the merits of long lasting, stable, heterosexual marriage is beyond me. Coleridge’s omission of same-sex couples out of the mix was of no particular concern to the Law Society; it’s just a convenient excuse to ensure they all have the gold plated careers that Coleridge has himself enjoyed.
LikeLike
Natasha, I love your balance. I agree with you totally. Maybe the lack of balance in the Law Society is due to the fact that they understand better than us the very over reactive attitudes of minorities……so quick to take offence and defend themselves when no one has attacked them!
You are definitely not bias nor are you arrogant, far from it, you have natural humility, as for “bigotry”, that is laughable…….I am still laughing.
LikeLike
Is it not unfair to criticise a judge, or anybody, who promotes same sex marriage? Is it not a bit crass to presume that because Coleridge promotes same sex marriage that he is anti-gay marriage?
The Court of Appeal, where this and other dinosaurs lurk (though Coleridge may nowadays be of the leaf eating type rather than his earlier more savage anti-father disposition) has already expressed its support for same sex relationships. In those cases, gay fathers get shared residence; lesbians are given a fair deal. Much better deals than the average heterosexual male in private law or heterosexual female in public law. Heterosexual people exist to grease the financial wheels of the legal and social professions whilst same sex relationships get Justice and yes, its all about the vociferous lobbies and behind-the-scenes anti-family policies tacitly produced by undercover feminists and Marxists.
Could be that Coleridge is merely addressing the imbalance between how the legal profession views same sex vs hetero? But what I can’t understand is why on earth he felt the need to stage his maiden voyage at the Law Society? Why would an organisation whose members profit from the destruction of marriage be inclined to support it? They support same sex because….??? There is a higher rate of separation and DV perhaps?
Outside of Alice in Wonderland family courts, where procrastination becomes law whenever it suits, lies a real world where naivety results in humiliating retorts no matter who you are, what you are, or what you think you are – or who you think you are going to be in the future.
And let’s face it, the Law Society chose their moment….hall long since booked, invitations sent……speakers invited…speeches written…press warned off….icing just about dry on the cake…….Bang!!! ‘Go F*** yourself!!’ The timing is without doubt the biggest snub. I think all the Old Guard in the family division should be nudged on, yet I cant help but feel for Coleridge and all others who actually like the idea of heterosexual marriage.
LikeLike
Dear Stu, thanks for your post. I think the point I’m making is not that judges who value same sex marriage are somehow wrong, but that any judge who takes the view that one man, one woman, is the only way forward (which is clear, if you read the Law Society article, from the title of the debate), and who feels so strongly that he wishes to set up a think tank to bully the nation into sharing his view, is wrong. Judges are supposed to be impartial.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Marriage Foundation: Think Tank Tanks « Researching Reform