---
title: "Peter Tatchell: &#8220;Same-sex marriage is a great victory. But it isn&#8217;t quite equality&#8221;"
date: "2014-05-19T11:05:28+01:00"
modified: "2014-05-19T11:05:28+01:00"
url: "https://rationalists.org.uk/articles/peter-tatchell-same-sex-marriage-is-a-great-victory-but-it-isnt-quite-equality/"
post_id: 6210
---

# Peter Tatchell: “Same-sex marriage is a great victory. But it isn’t quite equality”

*![Peter Tatchell](https://rationalists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/images/Peter-Tatchell.jpg "Peter Tatchell")*

*This article is a preview from the Summer 2014 issue of New Humanist magazine. You can [subscribe here](/supportus).*

*Peter Tatchell is one of the UK’s best-known campaigners. A member of OutRage! and the Green Party, he has supported causes that promote human rights, democracy, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights and global justice since 1967. The Equal Love campaign, which he coordinated, was instrumental in the legalisation of same-sex marriage earlier this year.*

**The UK’s first same-sex marriages took place in March 2014. Is this a moment for celebration?**

Oh, yes, the passage of the same-sex marriage act is a great historic victory. But it isn’t quite equality.

**Why not?**

The law has been mistakenly described as equal marriage. It’s no such thing. What we now have is a system of segregation in marriage legislation. The Marriage Act 1949 is exclusively for opposite-sex couples, while the Marriage (Same-sex Couples) Act 2013 is exclusively for same-sex couples. Separate is not equal. One shocking element of the legislation is that it includes an explicit, categorical ban on the Church of England and the Church in Wales carrying out same-sex marriage, even if they wish to. This is not only homophobic; it’s an attack on religious freedom.

**Marriage is a conservative institution and you’re a radical. Why fight for it?**

I share the feminist critique of marriage. Historically, it has been a sexist, homophobic institution. But, as a democrat, I believe everyone should be equal before the law. As an LGBT rights campaigner, it’s my duty to challenge all forms of discrimination. I also understood that it was a lightning-rod issue that would bring out the homophobes and enable us to challenge and defeat them.

**You’re campaigning, now, for civil partnerships to be extended to heterosexual couples. Why?**

The principle of straight equality is just as important as LGBT equality. We know from anecdotal evidence that there is a sizeable minority of straight couples who would prefer a civil partnership – they see it as more egalitarian and modern, and don’t like the patriarchal burden of marriage. In the Netherlands, where both have been available to all couples for over a decade, 10-15 per cent of straight people choose civil partnership rather than marriage. I’m confident we’d get a similar take-up in Britain. But even if only a tiny number of straight people wanted one, the law should respect their right to make that choice.

**Is there a problem with homophobia in the UK?**

The campaign for same-sex marriage prompted a scale of homophobic invective that we hadn’t seen for well over a decade. That was precisely my strategy – to use same-sex marriage to expose the myth that homophobia was dead and gone in Britain. I knew it wasn’t true and I saw the campaign as a way of demonstrating that. The battle over same-sex marriage was the last great backlash of the homophobic minority who know they have lost the battle of hearts and minds as well as the battle of legislation.

**How does your criticism of organised religion affect your campaigning on religious issues?**

According to human rights law, the right to hold a religious belief or non-belief is a fundamental human right, so even for people like me who are highly critical of religion, it is important to defend people of faith who are suffering persecution, as well as those victimised for having no faith. It’s very important that we don’t slip into the tactic of our religious critics, which is to decry and deny the rights of those with whom we disagree. While it’s very important to challenge religious superstition and privilege, we must also challenge discrimination against believers.

**You’ve joined the board of Muslim organisation Tell MAMA. Why?**

[Tell MAMA](http://tellmamauk.org/) does very important work monitoring and reporting anti-Muslim hate crimes. There is no doubt Muslim people are victims of insults, abuse, threats, menaces, intimidation, harassment and actual physical violence. Tell MAMA is also on the liberal end of Muslim opinion. It has taken a strong stance against anti-Semitism and homophobia, unlike some other Muslim organisations. It’s important to support and empower people within the Muslim community who are challenging prejudice and affirming liberal democratic values, which is what Tell MAMA does. I don’t necessarily agree with every judgement the organisation has made, but overall I think its work and its stand is positive.

**The term “Islamophobia” has been contentious. What’s your view of it?**

I prefer the term anti-Muslim hate or prejudice. It is absolutely valid to criticise Islam, or any religion. The term Islamophobia is often used to intimidate and silence valid criticisms. That’s a de facto attack upon free speech. I’m also highly critical of the frequent attempts to characterise criticism of Islam or various extremist groups as racist. Islam is not a race. It’s a belief system. While the majority of Muslim people in Britain are non-white, liberal progressive critiques are not motivated by Muslim people’s race. It’s a critique of a belief system. Undoubtedly some of the anti-Islam rhetoric from the far right is racist. But I don’t believe that most secular critics are driven by that agenda.

**Where does anti-Muslim hatred begin and valid criticism end?**

Muslims have the same human rights and responsibilities as every other person – no more and no less. To abuse, intimidate, harass or promote violence against Muslim people is absolutely wrong in all circumstances. Islamist extremism should be challenged, but without making generalised attacks on the wider Muslim population – the extremists are a tiny minority. We should respect the person but there’s no requirement to respect the ideas, if they are anti-democratic and anti-human rights.

**You have said you want to build bridges between the LGBT and Muslim communities. Have people been receptive?**

There have been naysayers on both sides but overall the response from both communities has been very positive. I’m heartened that there is an emerging consensus about building bridges. This is very different from two decades ago, when no Muslim leader was willing to have any dialogue with any LGBT organisation.

**Find out more about Peter Tatchell’s work at [petertatchell.net](http://www.petertatchell.net/)**