Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Giant card and demonstration call on Prince William and Kate Middleton to support gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Excellent!

    1. This demonstration hasn’t had any big effect. A better strategy would be to highlight the issue using the same strategy, but during the next Gay Pride event and parade. Hundreds of thousands more people parading for a cause could make all the difference.

  2. Yeah right 25 Apr 2011, 7:11pm

    publicity stunt

    1. for what? equality.

      1. Yes, it is a publicity stunt. To publicise the fight for equal rights for gays to get married.

        The fact that they did it a few days before the wedding shows that they weren’t trying to ruin the big day, they were just keeping this issue on the public radar so we can achieve change.

      2. Yet The Gay Liberation Front is OPPOSED to gay marriage:

        And though we don’t lay down rules or tell gay people how they should behave in bed or in their relationships, we do want them to question society’s blueprint for the couple. The blueprint says ‘we two against the world’, and that can be protective and comforting. But it can also be suffocating, leading to neurotic dependence and underlying hostility, the emotional dishonesty of staying in the comfy safety of the home and garden, the security and narrowness of the life built for two, with the secret guilt of fancying someone else while remaining in thrall to the idea that true love lasts a lifetime-as though there were a ration of relationships, and to want more than one were greedy.

    2. Yeah right… Exactly, a brilliant and positive publicity stunt for equality, well timed and well executed without any negativity.

    3. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:07am

      Publicity stunt – Campaigning for Equality

      You say Potarto – I say Potato…

      It’s good that lack of Equality is being highlighted, with public support.

  3. OK so spoil their day by demonstrating, yeah that is going to help isn’t it? It would p**^ me off enough to not support gay mattaige if that happened to me.

    I’m sorry it would be nice to get married if you want to but I think there are bigger things to worry about. There is still bullying of LGBT peole and Tatchell is worried about marraige.

    Priorities!

    1. I don’t think it would spoil their day. The demonstrating appeared to be very good natured, and it was coupled with a congratulations card. There are lots of important things to consider with regards to LGBT rights – bullying being uppermost – but that doesn’t mean marriage equality is unimportant. Far from it. Marriage equality would be a hugely significant step, and would symbol to the straight population that equality is unstoppable.
      As for Peter Tatchell – he gets a hard time from a significant portion of the LGBT population, but without brave people like him campaigning – rightly or wrongly – we wouldn’t have any of the rights we enjoy today. I know his bravery makes me feel ashamed that I won’t even hold my partner’s hand in the street out of fear. I am endlessly grateful to people like PT.

      1. Nicely said, Helen S.

        @ Paul: whose day has been spoilt?

      2. Spanner1960 25 Apr 2011, 8:25pm

        Hard time from LGBT people.
        He would get a hard bunch of fives if he got near me.
        Wanker.

        1. Wow, big man. I’m sure PT is quaking. If you really try hard you might even equal Mugabe’s thugs in the damage you do, and I imagine that would please you no end.

          1. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:16am

            Truth is James! it may not seem important to some but only when we have Equality can we tackle the problems society throws at us. So long as we don’t have equality these bullies of this world have the power to act against us.
            Change that and they become powerless.

          2. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:17am

            Oo-er that was meant for the message below.

    2. I agree with Paul it seems like equal rights = middle class respectability and anyone outside those parameters are ignored. The fact that older people would rather die at home alone rather than move into homophobic sheltered housing is pretty grim and more important

      1. @ James!: sorry, but just because there are issues that you might think – with justification – more important doesn’t mean that Tatchell’s message here is wrong. Nor do I really understand your comment about middle-class respectability – are you saying that equality in marriage only affect the middle classes? Surely not?

        1. Rehan. Tatchell is always quiet when people are attacked or murdered but he’s really pushing this marriage thing. Maybe he wants his foundation to be in competition with stonewall. Men who go cruising or live unconventional lives are pretty much vilified and their concerns are ignored. Marriage equality is a good thing but on a lists of needs surely safety should have priority? So far this year 2 men have been attacked and he said nothing. If he ignores these attacks,as the self appointed gay spokes person, it seems like he’s accepted random attacks as the norm.

          1. Men who go cruising or live unconventional lives are pretty much vilified and their concerns are ignored.

            Are you talking about the same PT that invited widespread ridicule (some time ago, admittedly) by claiming that it was ‘every gay man’s right to have sex in public’ when they proposed reinstating the railings in Russell Square? I don’t think you’re being very fair here.

          2. Rehan

            Ok good point but why dosent he speak out about the murders and violent attacks too? Past few years I can think of about 7 murders or serious assualts and he kept quiet. Why is that?

          3. James! – I don’t know, to be honest: it’s my impression that he does usually comment whenever there’s been a homophobic murder, but maybe he hasn’t always. Maybe it’s something you could take up with him? It may also depend on whether or not his comments are given airtime by the media.

    3. What incoherent babble. Nobody is spoiling anybody’s day. The demonstration was today, Monday; the wedding is on Friday. What are you talking about??

      If you bothered to lift a finger and check his website, you will find that Mr Tatchell fights on many fronts.

    4. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:10am

      “OK so spoil their day by demonstrating”

      Er, their wedding is on Friday, whats it going to spoil exactly?

    5. Paul, you raise an important point about what our priorities should be.

      The way I see it equality in Law must be our highest priority. The Law is a powerful influence on people’s behaviour, and inequality in Law gives support to people who would bully.

      That is why equal marriage needs to be a priority. Bullying will not stop, no matter how much money and resource we throw at the problem for at least as long as there is inequality in the law of the land

    6. Most poeple think all LGBT issuses aren’t a priorty anyway…there is already a lot of publicty around school bullying and there is generally wide spread support for combatting it…many of the older generation do find it harder to accpet gay marriage/CPs and this was a lot worse before CPs were introduced. …gay marrigae (or marriage equality) is a positive image for gay people just like CPs were..I suspect with marriage there will be more acceptance from older people and less homophobic bullying…I can’t see how we can possibly combat bullying when we have to analyse the arguments against gay marriage..I can’t see how we can feel more comfortable going into homes as older people when people haven’t been trained to see us as equals in all things and marriage is seens as fundamental right for most people..CPs just highlights the fact that we are different and can’t possibly be as good as them…

  4. Spanner1960 25 Apr 2011, 8:24pm

    People ask me why I don’t like Tatchell.

    It’s provocative CRAP like this that says why.
    He has all the time in the world to make his voice heard, yet chooses to dump it on an event like this. This is not a political rally, this is someone’s fcuking WEDDING!
    Show some fcuking RESPECT, you asswipe!

    No wonder so many people say gays piss them off when we have wankers like this presenting our public image. The man is nothing but a self-publicist, and I can assure people he does not represent me, or many other LGBT people who choose to seek equality the conventional way without winding people up.

    The man is a c.u.n.t.

    1. Calm down dear, it’s not actually the wedding – not for another 4 days anyway.

      You might not want equality in marriage, but I for one am glad that there are people like Tachell around to make a point on my behalf. (You win some, you lose some, PT.)

      1. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:21am

        Sorry just saw Spanners comment then posted mine then read yours.

    2. His protest seems a little less offensive than yours sir !

      and i think somewhat more useful.

      informing what gay people cannot do is not the same as representing them.

      Show some *** respect , you **** !

      have a nice day!

    3. There is an aspect of this marriage being a political rally when there are seven royal tyrants on the wedding guest list from countries like Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Qatar and Brunei.

    4. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:20am

      Calm down dear, the weddings not til Friday!

    5. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:23am

      Whats up Spanner lost your nuts?

      Shirty fella ain’t ya.
      It’s was actually a good day to protest, or maybe you would have prefered it on Friday?

      1. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2011, 5:02pm

        That’s only because he would get about as far as the North circular before he got arrested.

        1. before he got arrested

          By whom, and what for?

  5. Good on Peter Tatchell. He might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but he keeps on fighting for what he (and in this case I) think is right.

    If you don’t want equality, just keep quiet. You don’t need to take it up. But some of us are willing to, with good grace as he showed today, keep pressing for it. Why this seems to be a problem for some on these comments I don’t know.

    I spent 5 years arguing for equal marriage, to the point last summer where I got Simon Hughes and the Labour leadership candidates to come out in favour of it. I’m so pleased that it’s now being taken up by so many and in such public ways. Nearly every major party in the Scottish elections have it as a policy in their manifestos. We are nearly there.

    Keep fighting Peter. I’m with you.

    1. Absolutely, Jae – nicely said.

  6. Victoria (Regina) 25 Apr 2011, 9:45pm

    We are not amused Mr Tatchell. There’ll be buggery hell to pay if you scare the horses.

  7. Well done Peter – you pitched this just right. This is not a party political issue, and the timing four days before the actual ceremony was well judged. Your your good wishes to our very popular Prince and Princess-to-be was a masterstroke of diplomacy and conveying very effectively an obvious injustice with good humour, dignity and courtesy.

    Gay marriage is most certainly not ‘just a middle class issue’ – it is a human right that gay couples from all walks of life should be able to enjoy. Some Britons, especially those with big chips on their shoulders will moan and gripe about anything – don’t listen to them Mr T, carry on being you and being the best equalities campaigner we have.

  8. As I’ve said before on here, those in poly relationships are also banned from collectively marrying as are loving 15 year olds (who are emotionally and sexually mature!)

    The reason marriage is as it is is because 1 man and 1 woman is the only permutation of people which have been known to produce human offspring together! The reason the age constraint is in place is because people are not judged ‘mature’ until the age of 16.

    At the present day, ‘natural’ procreation has not been observed between two men or two women or a relationship comprising two women and a zebra, hence marriage being restricted from these forms of relationships are exempt from marrying!

    If we modify marital law to permit two men/two women to marry, aren’t we merely emphasing to poly people the marriage discrimination they have and will continue to face?

    Surely, people like Tom Green from Utah will come over here at the next Royal Wedding to pressurise Prince Harry & Chelsy Davy to support poly marriage.

    1. apart from of course all the polygamous and polyandrous societies around the world that produce children.

      Marriage is not about procreation, nor has it ever been.

      Should an elderly man and a elderly women be prohibited from marriage just because they can no longer have kids? I think it is very wrong to treat elderly people as you are, their love is just as true as anyone elses.

      I

    2. you homophobic idiot! -marriage isn’t about kids plus many couple scan’t or don’t want kids any way!
      slippery slope fallacy is an epic fail anyway as allowing marriage for same-sex couples isn’t going to mean anything else will be
      Good luck to Peter
      as for cottaging – that’s disgusting if you try it on someone who isn’t interested and some people don’t respect others

    3. You should be protesting at Buckingham Palace for polygamous marriage yourself Oll as it’s apparently your special interest and a topic that you and you pretty much alone bring up again and again here on a gay site, perhaps you should be posting your comments on a site supporting polygamy.
      This event was supporting marriage equality for gay couples and for straight couples, what part of that did you misunderstand?

    4. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:32am

      Typical idiot.

      How on Earth does two people able to marry the love of their life equat to your warped arguement.
      This is about 2 people. Not 5, TWO.
      Your arguement is seriously flawed and I recommend you look at other countries that already have Equal marriage to see the world doesn’t fall apart more does your arguement stand any merit.
      It’s just a typical, ranting arguement, a somewhat desperate plea, from homophobes that makes absolutely no sense.
      Of course we know for people like you, you just want to keep all LGBT people is some disturbing image of sexual debauchery but shock horror LGBT people are just like you. We love just like you. We live just like you.
      However unlike you we don’t discriminate because of it.

    5. Olly wrote: “If we modify marital law to permit two men/two women to marry, aren’t we merely emphasing to poly people the marriage discrimination they have and will continue to face?”

      As polygamy is not legal for anyone gay or straight…apart from I think perhaps some immigrants to the UK who previously had entered into heterosexual polygamous marriages in their country of origin… it is questionable whether polygamous marriage rights are actually an equality issue, certainly extending the same marriage rights that heterosexual couples have to gay couples does nothing to further discriminate against the legal recognition of polygamous relationships than the existing situation.
      If therereally is a class of people who are called poly people and these poly people feel they are discriminated against, then let them speak up Oll.

      1. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 9:11am

        Wait for it… taking bets on the next arguement from Oli..

        Relatives – 2/1
        Animals – 4/2

        Save your breath Oli. Your arguements are both flawed and pointLess.

        1. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 9:12am

          Bloody software!

    6. Yawn, here we go again – Oli, if you feel so strongly about it, campaign for polygamy yourself, stop trying to make us slip on your bloody red herrings!

      1 man and 1 woman is the only permutation of people which have been known to produce human offspring together – tell that to 1.6bn Muslims, the males in which group are not restricted to the one-only pattern you imagine is universal.

  9. How how ridiculous. Leave the happy couple alone Mr Tatchell. Get over it, we can’t get married at the moment – that’s just the way it is. The royal family have no real power when it comes to the law so please don’t bother them.

    1. They may not have political power, but they are the symbolic and ceremonial leaders of our country. If they don’t stand for the broad principle of equality before the law and equal respect for all Britsih citizens, then what are they actually for? If the Royal Family can’t represent the ideals of our society, then there really is not much point having them.

  10. I think it was a lovely initiative to raise awareness of the campaign but I’d be surprised if Will and Kate came out in support of same-sex marriage (even if they were supportive in private) for the simple reason that I think the royal family never openly take a political position.

    1. Few regard racial equality or gender equality as a “political position” so it is time we stopped thinking of gay equality as “political”. It isn’t. It’s a fundamental of human freedom which some bigots have politicised, just as civil rights for black people and women was politicised in the past, but today – except on the far fringes – is uncontroversial.

  11. Dan Filson 26 Apr 2011, 2:13am

    An astutely timed demonstration which will achieve a high level of national and international publicity, and won’t – in my opinion – cause offence or distress to anyone who matters.

    But the public has not yet grasped quite why the civil partnership arrangements are not good enough, how they differ from civil marriages that opposite sex couples have and how to square the circle of not imposing on churches the need to celebrate in their premises marriages they do not accept.

  12. I’m slightly appalled that no-one has raised the republican angle here. Since when do we particularly want to legitimise an archaic anti-democratic institution like the monarchy?
    Will seems to be a pleasant enough young fellow, with a social conscience. However, he isn’t the result of merit, but aristocratic lineage.

    1. No he isn’t the result of merit yet, I think the way the Royal family view themselves in the public eye will change once the older generation of Royals die out and the younger ones who can be more appriciative of the current social environment will be better.

      Though Fergie is excommunicated by the family for her use of her Royal lineage for publicity and profit gain I don’t think that will always be the case and they will soon probably become a different type of celebrity. But, then, you say he’s done nothing to merit his current status except be born, can’t we say the same about many people in the public eye who are famous for being famous or were born into money which allowed them to be propelled into public eye?

      I doubt the majourity of people could name the 2010 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize or who’s the forerunner in cancer research unless they are interested in that feild, less and less celebrities are in the public eye due to their achievements.

  13. I love people wanting to campaign for equal rights for all people but I think it’s a bit unfair using someone’s wedding to do it.

    Yes they are celebrities etc but it’s still their wedding, people dislike the Westbarrow Church for doing the same to the worst moments of people’s lives isn’t it just as bad to use someone’s best moment for their own agenda?

    1. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:37am

      Yes but the difference is this protest was done on Monday, a few days Before the wedding. People like the WBC would have done it on the actual day of the wedding.

      1. Very true, but it still distracts from their day. How would you like it at your wedding (hopefully one day) someone sends you a card but has a motive attached to it? The day itself and everything surrounding it should be about them and their happiness for the future, not to be used as some ploy for publicity.

        As someone said it was tastefully done but it doesn’t distract from the fact that they usurped their day for an different agenda.

        1. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 9:09am

          I can’t agree with that. I think it was probably the best time. I wasn’t sure before this but I think it was the perfect time to do this and it was don’t in a respectful manner. Being the couple they are they will come to expect all sorts. It wasn’t about being a Republic it was about wishing them well and reminding then that while indeed they do have a choice others don’t. Yet the love they share is no different and we should be able to share in marriage too.

          I think it was well thought out and tastefully done.

        2. @ Ewan: what card doesn’t have a motive attached?!

          Being concerned about publicity is a little odd, given that the event is expected to be watched by 2bn people!

          1. “Yes they are celebrities etc but it’s still their wedding, people ”

            Is it “their wedding”? Do normal people have a public holiday declared for their wedding day, which is then televised live around the world?

            This isn’t a “normal couple” or even a “celebrity couple”. They are the nation’s first couple, and as such, a symbol for all. That is their role. That is why they are there.

  14. Jock S. Trap 26 Apr 2011, 8:03am

    It’s good this was done respectfully and with much support as reported for Equal Marriage from the public.
    It is time to change this discriminating law and allow all who wish to marry do so or equally choose not to, too.

  15. Unfortunately, the two people who done the most for gay rights, Blair and Brown, haven’t even been invited to the wedding. It’s very bad form.

    1. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2011, 5:04pm

      Nurse! He’s fallen out of bed again.

    2. I assume you’re taking the p!ss just like Blair did? If not then go boil your head.

  16. Wedding? What wedding?

  17. I think it’s a bit tasteless to do this on their wedding day. Yes it would be nice for them to support us but we can’t go picketing weddings. That feels to much like Westbro Pickering funerals to me. Different message entirely but your still there trying to get a message across potentially disrupting and taking away from their special day.

    After the wedding tho we should ask them to support us.

    1. Adam, the wedding is on Friday. The stunt was on Monday. 4 days apart.

      Nice one Peter!

    2. It is ironic that most of the people who claim to be so deeply concerned about they Royal couple having a perfect wedding don’t appear to know what day their wedding is on. It’s on Friday.

      1. Isn’t it just!

      2. I thought they were planning on being there on the wedding with this as well? That was my point.

        I may of imagined it :( my bad ^^

        As for doing it today I think it’s stupid. I don’t really care about the royal wedding as a royal thing but I don’t want anyone’s wedding picketed.

  18. Constitutionally the Royals can’t get be politically active or be involved in political matters anyway, so this whole protest is somewhat pointless.

    1. The main point is that it was a publicity stunt. it would be fantastic if they came out in support of marriage equality but the royal wedding is being shown around the world and in all the commonwealth countries where like the UK some of those countries are asking for marriage equality. The whole wedding is one big television stunt to promote the royals and the Uk and I don’t see why PT shouldn’t use the opportunity to highlight the ineqaulity of the marriage laws.

  19. In the good old days of queer activism, Petter wouldn’t have cared what the royal family think. Perhaps everyone becomes more conservative as they grow old.

    1. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2011, 5:06pm

      In the good old days of colonial imperialism, they would have had him lined up against a wall and shot for treason.

      1. @Spanner 1960: why is it not a surprise that you yearn for the least civilised and most brutal and shameful aspects of ‘colonial imperialism’? (Though what that has to do with PT is a bit of a mystery.)

        Still, you might want to consider the way the intellectually handicapped (or “backward”) were treated in those times too – where, after all, would that have left you?

      2. Spanner1960 27 Apr 2011, 9:13am

        Well, there were a number of downsides I admit, but I guarantee you this country wouldn’t be up sh|t creek like it is now had it stuck by a lot of it’s values.

    2. ”Queer activism”?…..for starters I would have hoped the term ‘queer’ went the way of the dodo with all the progress that has been made for the LGBT community. But I’m sure I’ll be told to accept it as a positive term in the same way the black community have appropriated the ‘n’ word for their cause. No thanks.

  20. Excellent! If anyone think its a waste of time, think again. Its the younger straight generation that is helping to break down barriers for marriage equality. William and Kate’s support would be a huge step forward to make marriage equality a reality although I doubt if they’d be allowed to make any public statements concerning politics, although I could be proved wrong, hopefully. If they do, lets hope its positive.

  21. Peter Tatchell should leave HRH alone to get married, Peter Tatchell is always sticking his nose into something that really does not concern him.

    He did it in Moscow and look what happened to him there.

    Peter if your going to do something, do it with some respect for yourself.

    1. @ Joe: I think that’s because PT thinks of human rights in the broader sense, not just restricted to himself and those he knows; and I believe he feels that the causes he believes in are greater than himself or his personal safety. That’s how principled people operate.

    2. gino meriano 26 Apr 2011, 2:03pm

      full agree Joe

    3. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2011, 5:06pm

      Right on Joe.

  22. gino meriano 26 Apr 2011, 1:58pm

    What a stunt and media grabbing yet again, this is not equality this is a disgrace. Makes me wonder why he does this all the time when in fact equal marriage and civil partnerships will happen in time, so why does he not focus on urgent LGBT matters like the youth of today that need our help

  23. I must admit Im not religious and Im not bothered in the slightest about marriage but I dont get what this demonstration/publicity stunt is about or who it is aimed at. I am aware that gay marriage is ilegal however I dont understand what legalising it would achieve in the grand scheme of things. Many religions do not believe it is right to be gay and I cannot see many religions keen on gay marriage. If people wish to truly commit to eachother then there are other ways apart from marriage to show this, eg. loyalty, trust and commitment. Should people wish to display this publicly then there is civil partnership. I just feel that stunts like this can often just be too much and not thought through at all. In addition I dont feel it fair to apply this pressure on a couple just starting out. I know it seems like Im ranting but I do think the energy used on this could have been used in a more productive and less selfish fashion such as equality on giving blood which in turn saves live

    1. however I dont understand what legalising it would achieve

      It seems to me you’re saying you’re happy being seen as a second-class citizen. Well, if that’s so, all well and good for you – but please try to understand that others might not be as complacent about being so dismissed.

      Incidentally, you might not know this, but sexually active gay men aren’t allowed to give blood in the UK.

  24. Peter Tatchell 26 Apr 2011, 9:37pm

    Some people posting about this event are clearly misinformed. We did not spoil Will and Kate’s big day. Our event was four days before theirs. The public response outside Buckingham Palace. was amazingly supportive. Everyone there expressed support for marriage equality. We didn’t get a single negative reaction. All we got was a rush from passers-by to sign the card and express their support for gay marriage.

    1. Very glad to hear that, Peter.

  25. Peter, I still tend to agree with Johann Hari with propping up an archaic institution like the monarchy, even by default. It’s also out of step with your avowed commitment to your more radical views about STV and a written constitution (which I share)

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all