This is a severe overreaction to a well-reasoned and researched speech given by a noted jurist, not an off the cuff rant as was perpetrated by her predecessor. In her speech, which I am sure you did not read the entirety of, she talks about the entire legal construct of marriage and indeed divorce and calls for among other things, the adoption of a no-fault divorce rule. Yet, the only thing you've picked up and the press has picked up is her analysis about same-sex marriage, which is factual and correct. In much the same way that judges sitting on the Supreme Court in the US regularly speak about progress of the law, Dame Anita has done so and should be commended for doing so in a manner that is thorough and in a lecture at a law school where students should be called on to critically analyse the law and its progression. That she did so after the referendum and not before, is to her credit. She has done so in a way which did not influence the vote so what is unconscionable and shameful about that!