Thursday, 28 February 2013


Currently those who marry in Church have two marriage certificates.

One from the Church and one from the Registrar's Office.

This practice will have to be changed if the Bill to use the word 'marriage' in two different ways is passed.

It would be macabre to expect those who marry in Church making vows to be part of one institution to be then required to sign that they agree to be part of another institution completely at odds with the one they had just made vows to join!


Similarly it would be sexual sadism if existing married couples are automatically forced against their will to be part of an institution where sodomy plays an integral part.

If the bill is passed they should be allowed to return their certificates if they wish.

I am sure that all those who avidly use the word 'fair' will welcome such a proposal and for such an amendment.

Indeed, even if the bill is not passed, it would still be sexual sadism now to require people married in Church to have two marriage certificates, following the government's claim that rectum abuse should be an integral element of the legal meaning of the consummation of civil 'marriage'.

Also having ONLY one certificate is the ONLY way of showing exactly which institution a couple has agreed to - whether holy matrimony or satanic marriage (eg those ordained by The Church of Satan, Homosexual Cults posing as Christians, The Church of Jimmy Savile and the Music Industry, the Registrar's Office, or any held at the BBC, Downing Street, Whitehall or Parliament buildings).
As for what should really happen, the sexual bully boys and girls all need to be tried and sentenced in an international court, whether they led 'government' or 'charity' or hacking attempts on this site.  A court with the power to imprison or have kept in secure mental establishments!


  1. You're right about Whitehall. They've argued that the Bill will avoid the injustice of a wife seeking a divorce if her husband has his genitals mutilated to look like hers, then gets upset if she doesn't agree that they are women lovers.

    1. Whitehall finally agrees with the Equality and Human Rights Commission that didn't want any husband who wanted to be a woman to have to end the marriage before officially applying to be a 'woman' under the bizarrely worded Gender Recognition Act (redefining biology). The Commission wanted at the time for the marriage to be AUTOMATICALLY converted into a civil partnership, without the wife's express consent to AUTOMATICALLY be an official lesbian.

      The proposal by Whitehall and the so called Human Rights Commission to force normal women into becoming official lesbians, saying it would involve less paperwork for her woman-husband, clearly shows the satanic nature of these people claiming to be government, and how the original UN Declaration has been inverted through organised evil.

      Certainly the Commission, as everyone knows, is interested in the opposite of human rights.

    2. The current Bill continues the macabre agenda of redefining what it is to be human started in the Gender Recognition Bill.

      Only an insignificant number of men want to be women, and even fewer have their genitals mutilated to look the part (in Britain, not Africa).

      Most still look like men. Instead of the law ignoring these psychiatric patients, sometimes sociopathic when the doctor isn't looking, meek and mild when he is, they were used as an excuse to start to legally redefine Man, which continues in the current Bill.

      It shows the boundless contempt government really has of Man as Nietzsche pointed to, and the boundless evil Parliament and Whitehall are capable of, spiritually probably worse than the Nazi party was.

      It shows the true origin of government and why it's generally the evil who rise to the top in government.

    3. Some 'transsexuals' claim that they are the guardian angels of mankind. Delusion is not at play. The tiniest number have overthrown Western Law. Across the country Police have called people infidels ("transphobic") if they believe in biological man, with or without a mutilated penis.

      Even cultures that had eunuchs never dreamed of what today's Ministers conceive and believe.

  2. Stonewall behind the proposals are only seeking proper sexual equality through legally establishing that a woman's vagina is equal to any man's rectum, full or empty.

    Only "nasty" people could claim that the rectum has just one biological purpose.

  3. Margaret Thatcher7 March 2013 at 21:48

    Churches are so wet.

    How many churchmen have called for the dissolution of Parliament because of the unfitness to govern?

    Can Jesus be impressed by wimps?