Just off the top of my head, Peter was on an important TV talk-programme a few weeks ago along with a couple of other high-profile people of different viewpoints to his. Each time he spoke a sizeable part of the studio audience showed their appreciation by applauding. A few years back, Andrew Neil, former editor of The Sunday Times, did a series of TV programmes in which he interviewed, with great intensity, a string of significant British political figures. He chose to interview Peter, as one of these.

Peter is much admired in this country for all of his human rights work. And he is constantly being invited to participate in the sort of discussions I have described above. Perhaps if he has a CV on his website all of these appearances may have been listed.

But, JP, have you EVER seen a headline here on PinkNews like:

“Peter Tatchell appears on important prime-time interview programme”.

or

“Peter Tatchell interview to appear in next issue of XXXXX”.

This work that Peter is continually doing is not deemed “newsy” enough, not only by PinkNews but by other websites and forms of media. As we well know by the headlines that DO appear, editors are constantly looking for the arousing, the sensational, and the startling!

Touché. Of course you understand why I would have had that impression from reading the comments here about Peter. You are one of the few who have always supported and defended Peter. I know that.

By way of comparison, what impression would you have of the American gay community if you noticed that most of the guys, who are very well-informed on issues in general, commented on an American gay newspaper and spoke against Harvey Milk, saying that he was just trying to make a name for himself while they barely mentioned any of the objectives he did achieve as a gay leader and gay activist?

Perhaps more of us would strive to be like Harvey Milk or like Peter Tatchell if we noticed that gay activists do have the public support of the gay community.

It’s not like me to moralize, and I’m not about to tell anyone what to do. Fact remains that if we do appreciate Peter Tatchell, then by extension, shouldn’t we be looking more closely at the Green Party while trying to grasp the vision that has attracted Tatchell?

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I was simply stating the obvious when I said that most of us don’t like PT.

Even the gay community has its hoi polloi!

I am dismayed that, given that the most important point about this story is the three groups that DO want to do same-sex weddings (and Unitarians do want to do weddings not just civil partnerships, whatever the government calls it) are not mentioned in the heading.

And (though it never gets mentioned) Pagans also want to do same-sex legal weddings. However, Pagan opposite-sex weddings are only legal in Scotland, but they are not allowed to do same-sex legal weddings there. Hopefully if this is sorted out, at least LGBT Scottish Pagan couples can have legal weddings, even if neither opposite-sex nor same-sex English Pagan couples can.

Thanks for challenging me.

I came to the conclusion that most of us don’t like Peter Tatchell not because I know Peter, but because every time his name comes up on these threads, most of the comments about him are negative. I would say as many as 80% are negative, and very often made by the some very intelligent guys who are more prone, for some reason that escapes me, to second guess Tatchell’s “selfish agenda” than to appreciate what he has done and continues to do for the UK’s LGBT community and Human Rights as a whole.

For example, when Peter received the “Blue Plaque” not too long ago, it become clear to me that most commentators here did not think he deserved it, or that he would use it to primp himself up, or that it was meaningless. Check it out, it’s in the Pink archives.

As for the statement I made, those were well chosen words. In the first place there are a few devoted followers of Peter Tatchell commenting at Pink, and they usually do get raked over the coals whenever they stand up for him and his work.

Also, it was primarily because I started reading Peter’s blogs on his own website that I was drawn to PinkNews where I expected to find the UK’s gay community supporting every word spoken by Peter.

I was disappointed; still am. But I must say I do enjoy PinkNews and I do like the guys and gals who comment here.

Finally, I didn’t say I didn’t like Peter Tatchell, did I? The fact is I believe he is a tremendous gay activist, and one of the few in the UK who has achieved his international stature.

Seriously though, haven’t you noticed that most of us don’t like PT?

The fact is that one hell of a lot of us admire and appreciate what Peter Tatchell has done for us.

He’s not perfect. None of us are. But the man has integrity and gumption.

That is “has increased”. Minor mistake, not in the league of speaking for “most” LGBT though!

The difference between Tatchell and Stonewall is that Stonewall claims to speak for LGBT people, while Tatchell claims to speak for equality, regardless of the community being marginalised.

If you don’t like Tatchell, you should instead say “what if SOME of us don’t like Tatchell” and the response is – you are not obliged to.

Slight difference from “You can have your second class copy of marriage here”, no?

The Euro court often works very slowly. The Austrian case was submitted to the court in 2004, and the French one in 2007.

But, as some of us have commented here previously, I wouldn’t at the current time hold out too much hope of success for these cases

For the technically minded, there are excellent third party submissions to the court on both cases, written on behalf of ILGA-Europe and other organisations, by Prof Robert Wintemute at King’s College London.

The more recent one, on eth French case, can be found here.

Well, if that really bad Hollywood actor has got himself a doctorate, good for him – but perhaps you mean ‘Rowan’?

christianity as we know it is on its way out, right.

For example, I strongly suspect Dr. Robin Williams may be in a deep depression and has asked the college of bishops to make a statement regarding the issue of gay civil partnerships in church; in other words, the C of E is becoming more democratic.

Mind you, I could be wrong.

I thought I was wrong once, but I was wrong! yuk, yuk.

“…take the British government to the European court of Human Rights…”???

Why didn’t I think of that?!

The book has already been written by an American named Matthew Fox, “a member of the Dominican Order for 34 years, was expelled by the former cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), who was chief inquisitor in the Catholic Church.

Matthew Fox is the foremost proponent of creation spirituality, based on the mystical teachings of early Christian visionaries such as Hildegard von Bingen, Meister Eckhart, and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

He is the author of twenty-six books, including “Original Blessing”, “The Coming of the Cosmic Christ”.”

Also, Matthew Fox is the author of a book entitled “A New Reformation: Creation Spirituality and the Transformation of christianity”, 2006, ISBN 1-59477-123-5(pbk.)

On the front cover we see in living color Matthew Fox, hammer in one hand, nail in the other, attaching his 95 Theses to the very same door used by Martin Luther as a bulletin board to proclaim the beginning of the First Reformation, in Wittenberg.

Bishop John Shelby Spong, author of “A New Christianity for a New World” says of Matthew Fox that he is “insightful and profound. History will name Fox one of the great Christian spirits of our age.”

@Eddy 24:

Spot on.

We’ll get there in the end.

Inch by inch.

Thank you, Bishops. Pour yourselves a sherry!