Replies

Almost makes you wonder if Judge Marten has a thing for young girls (or boys), doesn't it?

I'll bet he does have sympathy for muddying the waters around adults having "consensual" sex with other people's children!

But lets look at what is causing all this mess. We have liberals who are always prying into and attempting to manipulate the sexuality of children. They have been encouraging kids to have sex at younger and younger ages by omitting moral education from sex education and talking about sex in a positive way - without talking about the negative consequences. They try to get kids to talk dirty to them during "sex education" and in sex surveys. To get the kids to talk to them - strangers - about sex, they have to play "cool" as in "you can tell us, we don't judge it." Asking a twelve year old "have you ever had sexual intercourse, oral sex, etc." is none of the State's business and so teachers should not have to worry about reporting that which is private. Liberals then use the special sexual status with other people's children and the permission of activist judges to put minor children on birth control and give them abortions behind their parent's backs.

In reaction we have elected officials who are trying to stop liberals from sexualizing other people's young kids through literature, sex ed and sex surveys in an amoral social atmosphere. They passed a law that it is not legal to have sex under age 16 so that liberals can not encourage them to have sex in school - engage in a illegal activity. They can't take other people's young kids secretly to abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood for birth control because they are required to report a "crime." We get twisted in knots trying to curtail liberals from sexually treating, controlling and corrupting minor children in direct opposition to their parent's values and desires.

A child who is raped or molested by an adult (a criminal offense) is different than having consensual sex with peers - which is not the State's business when considering reporting of a crime.

The problem to begin with was activist judges permitting liberals to assert a "right" to talk dirty to other people's kids in immoral ways when parents objected. Then they gave liberals the right to give other people's kids abortions and birth control in secret from their parents. Instead of removing judges from the bench who did this; we try to pass new laws - be more clever - to legally stop the abuse.

In a different kind of society, parents would harm a teacher(s) who talked dirty to their kids and that would have been the end of the argument about whose morals are taught to other people's children by teachers. Teachers would be fearful of messing in taboo areas of culture. Liberals definitely respond to fear as we see with the cartoons, but without fear, they have no moral or ethical self control.

With one breath we condemn school administrators for their "zero tolerance" protocals which absolve them of using common sense, and with our next we condemn a judge who seems to require it.

I don't think attacking the judge's character is helpful. He seems to have a knotty problem on his hands. I wouldn't want to be the one who had to untangle it -- without a sword.