Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Peter Tatchell: ‘I may disagree with David Cameron on austerity, but on equal marriage I salute him’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 May 2013, 6:07pm

    Interesting that 117 Tories voted for the bill, 10 less than in the second reading. I wonder why? Loughton’s amendment perhaps?

    Still, that 117 voted for it is significant when they all could have voted against it. We realy can’t tar them with the same brush. I suspect they will be the ones for further change in their party.

    Other than that, I agree with Peter.

    1. Nine fewer for and seven fewer against. The drop from Labour both ways was even greater. Overall, there were forty-six fewer votes made, probably due to a lower turnout (which I have a feeling is common for third readings).

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 May 2013, 6:42pm

        Probably right, Harlequin. We can take great comfort knowing it passed with two huge super majorities though! Maybe that’s why Harriet Harman didn’t vote, although she was there on the day of the vote I believe, correct me if I’m wrong.

  2. I respect Tatchell and admire him because of his dedication to his beliefs, but the more I read some of his dodgy views, the less I like that he (and others) thinks he is an unelected representative of LGBT people.

    1. I don’t think he claims to represent the opinions of the majority of LGBT on every issue. If he did that would of course be open to criticism, but isn’t it nice to have such high profile gay people in public life with a diversity of opinions (not always reflective of the majority of LGBT people)?

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 23 May 2013, 6:53pm

      The CP legislation in 2004 was bungled by Blair and StonewallUK. They should have supported CPs for both orientations, something Peter has always supported and advocated for during the consultation. It would have made support for equal marriage far larger than it already is and would have diffused some of the resistance in the Tory party. Who knows, maybe Louhgton himself might have been an equal marriage supporter had that been the case, Burrowes definitely not. That’s why I’m convinced Loughton’s amendment was indeed a wrecking tool although Peter disagrees. Maria Miller said it would have delayed it but never said for how long. Peter believes it would have been three to four months. Could we have waited that long?

    3. In fairness, I don’t think PT has ever claimed to be the representative of all LGBTQIXYZABC123 people. My impression is that he has always honourably stood by what he himself considers important and has never made any claims otherwise.

      If you feel you could ably represent all LGBTQIXYZABC123 people, what’s stopping you?

  3. Peter & Michael 23 May 2013, 6:48pm

    We agree ! Everyone has their faults but on this issue David Cameron has been courageous, pity his party have not supported him for their own selfish views. It will not be the Equal Marriage Act that will lose the Conservative Party at the next election, recent events including the ‘bedroom tax’ , unemployment, benefit reductions and tax relief for millionaires and big companies, will do that.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 May 2013, 6:56pm

      Yes, and the Guardian throughout the equal marriage debate didn’t have many people blaming equal marriage for Tory losses and unpopularity, almost all to do with the economy and other social issues, whereas the Mail and Telegraph used equal marriage as the reason.

      1. The important phrase missing here is “among x”, for some group x.
        Tory losses among groups of right-wing bigots and old-fashioned idiots shouldn’t matter to them: at least in the long term.
        Tory losses among large swathes of the electorate who have suffered from the disastrous economic policies of the government, the gross inequalities they have given rise to and the dim and uncertain future many face as a result should concern the tory party. It doesn’t.

  4. Maria Miller deserves some credit to IMO. Being a minister for equality in this sort of party probably isn’t the easiest job in politics.

  5. Cameron has been courageous. Tatchell, however, whom I have previously had enormous admiration, greatly disappointed me. He almost succeeded in grasping defeat from victory.

  6. My friends in Australia (among others) remind me now truly astonishing it is that a conservative/Conservative leader should take such a strong and resolute, principled stance on the matter of equal marriage/ I do think Cameron deserves a good deal of credit for sticking to his guns in a way most people wouldn’t have expected him to,

  7. Spanner1960 24 May 2013, 9:17am

    Well I still think you are a prick, Peter.

    Mysellf and many other LGBT people do not think you represent us or or views, so please stop giving the impression you do. One cannot be a mouthpiece and an arsehole simultaneously.

    1. Yeah, Peter’s a pinko fanatic who makes apologies for paedos – ‘New Guinea had man-boy sex’ ‘the ancient Greeks had man-boy sex’ ‘man-boy sex isn’t always harmful’ ‘age of consent should be 14.’ The guy’s a creep.

  8. Quote: “I may disagree with David Cameron on austerity, but on equal marriage I salute him”.
    Me too. It has taken HUGE courage to defy the ‘swivel-eyed loons’. But he has done and we are another step closer to total equality under the law. I have never voted Conservative. I may just do next time so long as Cameron is still leader.

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