Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Peter Tatchell promises not to embarrass Sarah Brown

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Simon Murphy 2 Jul 2009, 11:12am

    Good man Peter. It’s totally acceptable to remind Sarah Brown that Labour is not committed to equality if they think that Civil Partnerships are sufficient for gay people. Sarah Brown will be representing the PM. If she gets embarrassed then even better. Labour (and the Tories; and indeed Stonewall) need constant reminding that ‘separate but equal’ is not really equal. I want to have the choice to get married if I choose. Just like I want my straight sister the choice to get a civil partnership if she chooses.

  2. Robert, ex-pat Brit 2 Jul 2009, 1:26pm

    Simon, forget about Stonewall. I’ve written to them several times about marriage equality. The response I received was…civil partnerships take care of it. Its not fit to use the name of Stonewall that originated here in New York where I currently reside. We’ve already seen seven countries abolish civil unions/partnerships and several states in America. Proof enough that legal segregation with similar rights, not all, doesn’t work. Civil partnerships will NEVER be the universal standard in terms of portability either, that’s why there is so much confusion in the EU, some having forms of legal unions and others not, and some carrying more rights than others. The bottom line is, any gay Brit couple residing elsehwere in the EU would not be entitled to identical rights enjoyed in the UK. An example of that are the French PACs model that carry few of the rights of a civil partnership, in other words, reciprocal arrangements between other states that have some form of legal recognition would be substantially imbalanced. Its a disgrace. Definitely NOT equality. Well done, Peter Tatchell!

  3. I’m very happy that Sarah will be marching at Pride and I’m glad that Tatchell will be bringing up the issue of same-sex marriage with her however our government’s attitude isn’t all that surprising seeing as our own frikken’ gay leaders don’t seem to be in favour of marriage equality either.

    Summerskill and Stonewall need a kick up the backside before we can progress further on this.

  4. Peter is very good at confronting people in positions of power. Mrs Brown happens to be married to the prime minister so it would be inappropriate to target her.

  5. What with ineffective chocolate teapots Stonewall on one side, and rabid queer extremists like Tatchell on the other, this really is between a rock and a hard place. Where is Harvey Milk when we need him?

  6. Mihangel apYrs 3 Jul 2009, 1:42pm

    RobN
    I’ve said before, PT is a pain, but he stirs things up and does highlight what he sees as hypocracy and humbug. He is also unfailingly combatative towards ANYBODY he thinks appropriate: thus he accosts Mugabe; thus he goes to Moscow.

    We may not like him or his tactics, but as a gadfly he’s very good: he picks the causes, brings them to the attention of everyone, and then saner people are forced to consider them.

    Stonewall on the other hand is, at the top, self-serving and establishment-friendly. This is not a wholly appropriate position for an organisation that should be campaigning as well as fulfilling a consultancy role. Is Summerskill aiming for a gong by not rocking the boat?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all