Peter says the equal marriage bill may face strong opposition in the Lords but in an interview last week, forget where I saw it, he also said he felt they would pass it.. That said, he’s right, Boris Johnson’s support was the game changer for equal marriage, no question about it.
Game changer was words and activity of Mr. Cameron in 2010-12, not mysterious silence of Mr. Johnson until autumn 2012. I think, deep in his hearth Boris still is an very homophobic teenager, who once has bullied gay guys on the schoolyard. I hate him.
I find it odd that on the one hand Peter has been pushing for equal marriage, asking the government to accept that this institution has evolved to become synonym with the love that all couples share regardless of gender. On the other hand he keeps going on about his being uncomfortable with its patriarchal history as if he himself can’t accept that marriage is now something other than what it was in past centuries. I find the latter attitude in principle not so dissimilar from the arguments brought by equality opponents who keep clinging on to the past understanding of what marriage was.
I think there’s no real inconsistency between Peter’s fight for LGBT equality and him not wanting marriage for himself….One could fight for the right of LGBT’s to to be in the armed forces, for instance, while being a pacifist who disagreed with violence and war,and who might in fact refuse to be enlisted on the basis of conscientious objection….
like that bill hicks joke on “gays in the military” – I laughed so hard – it’s the way he told it as well “here’s what I think about it…” and the pause.
Its about equality for all, Peter knows that many want marriage even though its not for him. Peter wants to be able to choose for himself, not to be excluded from marriage & I feel the same.
Yes, Boris* dithered at the beginning, and Mr Cameron and his allies deserve credit for his leadership on marriage equality. But Boris’s involvement was crucial in bringing a good portion of the Tory middle ground on board. Less than half the party isn’t great, but it was enough for Mr Cameron to see it through.
I also really appreciate the fact that Peter Tatchell has always been quite able to differentiate his view of marriage (that it’s a problematic institution) from his commitment to marriage equality.
If only Julie Bindel (who’s on Any Questions tonight) could do the same, rather than phrasing her views in such a way that they can be used by the antis to clobber us. But given her lack of compassion and empathy for trans women (and men), it’s hardly surprising.
* I usually use surnames and titles in my PN comments, but Boris is becoming a one-word phenomenon like Madonna.
Oh shut up tatchell you fraud
There’s no pleasing some people.
James, you NEED to explain your comment!
You need to explain yours
Peter Tatchell is a is a modern day hero.. No doubt about it. At great personal cost to himself, in both financial and health terms, he has given far more than many others to help achieve equality for all… Not sure I would have been willing to pay the price he has for this… but I am forever grateful to him that HE DID!
Why can’t we have conservatives in the U.S. who can separate their personal views about marriage from their professional views?
I would be interested to know whether Peter Tatchell has ever been in a long term relationship, out of curiosity.
How is that any of our business?
This is rather badly written & missing so many details. Why did the author not remind of of this for example? It was only 4 yrs ago! Boris has NEVER explained his change of postition!
Boris until very recently was very much against Gay Marriage, remember the Gay Hustings sham (see link above) & how offensive Boris was, Gay Marriage comments such as why not ‘two dogs & a man’ bla bla bla, what a slimy bastard Boris is.
Boris just says what he thinks people want to hear. I presume the three men and a dog line came from his Chicken Feed column in the Telegraph. He does occasionally say one thing in that and then behave in a different way elsewhere.
Having said that I think he does have a point to some degree (ignoring the dog – obviously offensive.) Should the state really be involved in what we can do, or just prevent us from doing the things that harm others? If three people want to spend there lives together and call it a marriage – have a ceremony or whatever – why does the state need to say yay or nay? Indeed why does the state have to have any say over consensual relationships at all?
Has he forgotten how Boris banned him from the Pride stage in previous years? Seems perverse that he would be so full of praise for that or any Tory.