Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Daily Mail criticises Nick Clegg’s ‘illiberal’ whipped vote on equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Did the author of the article choke when they accused someone else of being illiberal? The Daily Mail accuses someone else of being illiberal – that is the most outrageous hypocracy for a newspaper that has demonised and subjugated LGBT by some of the most grotesque and extreme homophobia of any UK newspaper for generations.

    In any event they chose to be on the wrong side of history – they sound desperate – they are on the wrong side of history and their bigotry and inhumanity is what they will be known for.

    1. If party policy opposed gay marriage they wouldn’t be complaining so I think they can just be ignored. If they’re arguing an ethical point then I’d listen but it’s difficult to make an ethical case for the existance fo democracy.

  2. Daily Fail yet again. I applaud Nick Clegg for telling his party to tow the party line rather than a free vote, quite as it should be too!

  3. If you’re offending the Daily Mail on LGBT+ equality, you’re probably doing something right.

  4. Let’s face it – they are preaching from their own pulpit to their own congregation. Their readership will believe anything they say, blindly, so they can say whatever they like.

    And if anyone criticises them for being hypocrites, it only allows them to print another piece about how the pro-gay movement wants to silence dissent.

    They are like conspiracy theorists – counter-0arguments just prove their point in their small little minds.

  5. Hugely complex? How is it hugely complex? Hugely complex in the way someone who pretends they’re against ‘PC’ terms might get confused as to what to call two men or two women after they’re married?

    Or hugely complex in PinkNews’ math questions?

    1. Ummm, you do realise that the “hugely complex” part was a quote from the daily mail right?

  6. The ‘Daily Mail’ is a paper written by bigots for bigots.

    1. Spanner1960 30 May 2012, 6:51pm

      That’s actually not true.
      Read a lot of the comments by readers below and you will see considerably more for LGBT people than against.
      I think people are changing, and the papers are going to have to realise if they want to retain their readership, they will have to move with the times as well.

      1. Those people who dip into the Mail who are not bigots tend to do so for humour, not out of any support!

        1. Spanner1960 30 May 2012, 9:08pm

          Well those commenting are not making silly quips, and are being deadly serious. Most want equality for everyone and see beyond the DM’s own rabid rhetoric.

      2. Like many newspapers/television/media they are no longer in control since bloggers began to appear etc and started to question their practices. It’ll take medium sized steps, sadly the Daily Fail will just not simply disappear but one can hope!

  7. Jock S. Trap 30 May 2012, 6:17pm

    Typical of the Daily Mail… of course they don’t support it they are run by discriminating bigots for discriminating bigots who only want to report on the worst of anyone and in particular our community.

    What they want is riots, hate, murder, cruelty because apparently they think it sell and lets face it most of their stories are old, out of date and usually inaccurate to suit.

    Shameful, they’re continuously misleading their readers with damn right lies to spread as much hatred as possible.

    How many see their paper and feel negative about themselves when growing up… how many kill themselves?

    We all know who has the innocent’s blood on their hands don’t we?!!

  8. Goodness. A liberal MP who has led a party whose official policy is to support equal marriage whips the vote on a measure that liberalises and increases personal freedoms? That’s illiberal? We should be used to the Daily Hates daily hate – now we have to put up with the utterly illogical. It’s as if the Daily Hate thinks it owns the Lib Dems as it owns the other coalition party.

  9. Official policy 30 May 2012, 6:36pm

    SInce when is official government policy the subject of a free vote?

    The only reason Cameron is not using the whip is that his intolerant rebels will rebel anyway, and that will make him look weak.

  10. Yes- but isn’t ANDREW PIERCE- an OPENLY GAY MAN- the EDITOR?

    This must be HIS opinion?

    1. That There Other David 30 May 2012, 8:01pm

      Pierce sold his soul long ago. This is par for the course really.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 May 2012, 9:34pm

      He’s probably another Ben Bradshaw, doesn’t consider it necessary let alone a priority.

  11. Spanner1960 30 May 2012, 6:54pm

    I for one do not see any reason not to have a free vote.
    I think our side is strong enough without whips. Whips are undemocratic and if they are used and we win, many will just claim they were forced into it.

    If we get through on a free vote there will be no argument and we will have won fair and square, democratically, across all parties without coercion or pressure.

  12. Funny how the Daily Mail only complains about “illiberal” three line whips when they don’t like the issues involved.

    Take a look at this article from a few years back. The newspaper tells Iain Duncan Smith that he must prove he is a strong leader (he had imposed a three line whip on adoption issues)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-146224/IDS-prove-strong-leader.html

  13. The Daily Mail is a toxic pool of xenophobia, racism and rancid little-Englandism, and the fact that it attracts six million readers every week is a huge indictment of the British newspaper-reading public.

    I know the Daily Mail’s homophobia is nothing new and this should be a total no-brainer, but LGBT people, you should NOT be reading the Daily Mail.

    I get it: they have good celebrity coverage, and that little sidebar is impossible to stop clicking. But the Daily Mail HATES you, and they’re actively trying to harm you. So this needs to stop. I’m sorry.

    If there’s any doubt in your mind that you and the Daily Mail are not cool with each other, here is a list of times they’ve been homophobic relatively recently:
    #1) Christianity Under Attack: Anger As Major Court Rulings Go Against British Worshippers
    The “attack” in the headline refers, in part, to two asshole B&B owners being denied the right to run a business that refuses to deal with gay customers.

    1. #2) Demoted for not Backing Gay Marriage: Housing Manager’s Pay Slashed for Criticising New Law on Facebook
      This is an article about a homophobe getting demoted in his job which falsely claims that: “The cruel persecution of homosexuals by the law was rightly ended more than 50 years ago,” in an attempt to make gay people seem like petty bitches.

      #3) Outrage As Tesco Backs Gay Festival… but Drops Support for Cancer Charity Event
      Post about Tesco’s decision to sponsor London Pride. Refers to homosexuals as an “aggressive political organisation”. And seriously, you’re squaring gayness off against cancer now? I didn’t realise either of those had recently achieved moral superiority over the other.

      #4) Yes, Gays Have Often Been the Victims of Prejudice. But They Now Risk Becoming the New McCarthyites
      I wish I could tell you what this article is about, but I genuinely don’t know. Something to do with forcing school children to have gay sex in geography lessons? IDK. It mentions how gays

    2. “attempt to brainwash children with propaganda” and describes a “ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very concept of normal sexual behaviour.”

      #5) A Strange, Lonely and Troubling Death…
      The infamous article by Jan Moir on Stephen Gately’s death, in which she claims to have a better understanding of Stephen’s death than the pathologist who did his post-mortem, on account of her qualifications as a homophobe.

      #6) Samantha Cameron Won’t Be Introducing Her Husband at the Tory Party Conference
      A column from the always pleasent Ephraim Hardcastle. After describing a gay blogger as “overtly gay”, the article asks: “isn’t it charming how homosexuals rally like-minded chaps to their cause?”

      #7) Slurred by the Adoption N@zis: Critics of Gay Parenting Are Branded ‘Retarded homophobes’
      Faux-outrage over the use of the word “retarded” by the National Adoption Agency that turns into a rant about gay parenting. Calls the case of a gay couple being charged with sexual abuse

    3. of children “a setback to the cause of gay parenting”. Like how the whole Fritzl thing was a setback to straight parenting.

      #8) What Is Normal when ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ Become ‘Parent 1′ and ‘Parent 2’?
      Frequently uses “normal” to mean “straight” and “abnormal” to mean “gay”. Calls the modification of UK passports to include gay parents: “a social atrocity approaching blasphemy.”

      #9) Conservative UK: Almost Half of Britons Still Oppose Gay Marriage
      Article about a five year old study which discovered that 45 percent of people agreed with the statement: “homosexual marriages should be allowed throughout Europe” is presented by the Daily Mail thusly: “Most people still oppose gay marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples, a Government report revealed yesterday.”

      #10) Don’t Forget, It Takes a Cynical Knave to Create a Dodgy Knight
      From a portion of a post that talks about gay marriage: “the few dozen homosexuals who – bizarrely – wish to get married in churches. If

    4. they really do, let them, provided the law also lets heterosexuals marry in gay clubs”. I’m with the Mail here. It’s about time that they overturned that law that stops straight people renting out private venues for their weddings.

      I’m sure there are hundreds and hundreds more that I’ve not included here, these are just the first ten I could think of. Hopefully it’s enough to make my point.

    5. This post was better than the article. PN should have published this just to remind us of who is genuinely “under attack” as the Daily Mail like to throw at us. Salute your effort!

  14. Remember: this is the same rag that in the late 30s suggested maybe Hitler wasn’t such a bad chap.

    The staff may have changed, but the mentality hasn’t.

    1. That There Other David 30 May 2012, 8:04pm

      They also once famously ran the headline “Abortion hope after gay gene findings”. They are nasty pieces of work, but don’t feel singled out. They hate everyone and everything.

      1. Abortion HOPE… really?!! I didn’t even know that, that’s really really nasty, even for the Daily Heil.

  15. Isn’t the Daily Mail the newspaper that John Bercow described as a “sexist, racist, bigoted, comic cartoon strip” and then also apologised for breaking the trade descriptions act by describing the Mail as a “newspaper”?

    1. I didn’t know Bercow had said this. Now I like him even more! And liking Tories is not easy for me!

      1. He did indeed, Riondo

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/07/john-bercow-daily-mail-comments

        I warm to some individual Tories, but it is a rare thing!

  16. So. You want to join the online army of the Far-Right and aid the BNP blog, do you? Well, such a noble enterprise is a big commitment.

    Some of you on the Far-Right will have jobs, however, and simply cannot spare the long minutes needed to create something so majestic and eponymous as the Green Arrow site. No. Mere mortals – possibly with only a passing interest in fascistic bigotry as a lifestyle choice – have to set your sights lower.

    Have you considered the Daily Mail Comments Boards as an entry-level introduction to the wonderful world of petty-minded racist imbecility?

    As a budding numbskull, you will possibly be a reader of the Daily Mail, already. Its comforting blend of film stars with cellulite (for which they must be roundly condemned), gentle nostalgia for The Good Old Days When You Could Leave Your Front Door Open And Teenagers Didn’t Go Round Stabbing Each Other On Their Facebooks, allied to a reassuring lack of too much actual “News”, has found favour with the

    1. ill-educated since the days of Moseley (sterling chap, by the way, and just the sort of no-nonsense politician Britain needs today…).

      On the internet (or “t’internet”, as you amusingly call it, ever since you saw that hilarious – and CLEAN – family entertainer Peter Kay do his routine) you can not merely read all the stories of the print edition; you can COMMENT ON THEM, ALSO!

      Imagine! YOU can pass ill-informed, kneejerk judgement on the Issues Of The Day! YOUR baseless witterings will be there for ALL THE WORLD TO SEE!

      That’ll show ‘em, eh?

      But first, you need to understand a few basic ground rules.

      The most important is this: Regardless of how much damage the current Government do with regards to the economy, public services, foreign relations and the general wellbeing of the Nation, everything (wherever possible) remains the fault of the previous Government for at least the next two years. The previous Government will, at all times, be referred to in your comments as

    2. as “LIEbour”, “Liebore”, “Nu-Labour” and “Za-Nu Labour”. (The appellation “Za-Nu Liebore” is something of a philological stretch, and should only really be used by the more experienced utter twat. Don’t worry – you’ll get there one day!)

      The current Regime should be referred to as “LibLabCon” or “ConDem”.

      Remember: You should NEVER admit to being a member of the BNP. In fact, we find that an active DENIAL of membership or support will allow you to get away with even more outrageous buffoonery (in much the same way as anyone who begins a statement with the words “I’m no racist, but…” is very probably still pining for the Good Old Days Of The Wehrmacht).

      By way of practice, why not try copying these statements out fifty times each:

      “I’m not a supporter of the BNP, but if the Marxist elite ever allowed them to form a Government it would surely usher in a new Golden Age of peace and prosperity for all in our once-great Nation.”

      “I have no time for Nick Griffin, but anyone can see

    3. that he would rule with exactly the sort of iron fist that this country needs.”

      See? It’s easy!

      Now then: What story to pass comment upon? There are three categories of Daily Mail story involved in this. I suggest you start with Category One – the Nursery Slopes of commentary.

      Category One includes all those pieces which bear a direct relation to BNP policy. Something about Asylum Seekers crossing the Channel in a lorry can easily be appended with something lazy and obvious.

      “These “people” are criminals – let them drown!” says “Mr Brown”

      “WE MUST BRING THE ARMY BACK FROM AFGHANISTAN AND POST THEM AT DOVER WITH THE ORDERS SHOOT TOO KILL! NOW!” adds “Force Five”. (Special note – using capitals makes your post appear more important and will draw the Reader’s eyes away from any grammatical errors.)

      As you can well see, Category One stories are almost too easy a target. After a short time learning the basics, however, you should be ready for the move to Category Two: Those stories

    4. and articles which can be related to the BNP mindset, but it takes a little more work.

      A story about a comparison between the standards of living in France and Britain, for example. Not, at first glance, something the average Online Warrior might have much interest in, but look!

      “I would like to leave Britain to all the riff raff from the Eastern block countries and elsewhere! No! Rather ship them all out and stay here! Soon it will be a case of SPOT THE ENGLISHMAN!!” says “Teacher”. Beautifully done; notice how “Teacher” begins to advance one argument before dramatically reversing His/Her position and ending on an hilarious punchline. Certainly a Master of the craft in the making.

      Category Three, however, should be left to the truly expert. These are the stories with, seemingly, no conceivable bearing on BNP policy or concerns. To the True Master, however, there is NO SUCH THING as a story which cannot be turned into an opportunity for simple-minded bigotry.

      Take this piece, for

    5. example: A genuinely tragic story concerning a double suicide. Surely, one might think, no-one could possibly get away with scoring cheap xenophobic points off something as awful as this? But no…

      “Anyone wondering why this is happening isn’t living in the real world” says “Oliver”. He continues: “competition from taxpayer-funded foreigners is excruciating…What will eventually happen is a breakdown of civilisation…that will be the end of government in the UK.”

      A work of genius. To move so effortlessly from a story of personal tragedy to an apocalyptic vision of future anarchy brought about by “foreigners” is truly masterful.

      Such a towering cretin surely has a glittering future among the ranks of the BNP.

      So Has that fired you with enthusiasm? Go on then – sign up for the Daily Mail Comments Board and you, too, can show yourself as the confused, narrow-minded, bigoted bile-dribbler that you undoubtedly are!

      Good luck – and remember: Although the Boards claim to be

    6. moderated, ANYTHING will get through!

      So is it any wonder they lie and show hypocrisy in their illegitimate slating of Nick Clegg by daring to ridiculously call him illiberal. Thats the ill informed, uneducated fluff of right wing 21st century neo-n@zi-ism that one expects from the Mail.

      1. Excellent comment, Ralph. Thanks for posting!

      2. Hilarious. Every word is so true. I thoroughly enjoyed these comments. Thanks.

  17. 26 lib dems haven’t yet publicly supported equal marriage acording to the supporters list on the C4EM website, all the others have.

    I suggest LF and Nick Glegg gets all his MPs to formally come out with their support and tell C4EM and then tell the Daily mail to just f#$k off!

  18. “overturning the teachings of millennia”

    Err, as far as I know, according to the bible, the earth is only a few thousand years old yes?

    1. millennia is the plural of millenium – a period of a thousand years. so… there’s no conflict between what he said and what he believes. He’s still a twat though…

  19. The Daily Mail (aka, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, and so on), is a reactionary tabloid rag masquerading as a “traditional values,” middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the worst of the British gutter press.

    The Daily Mail is to the U.K. what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to wit, gossipy tabloid journalism for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance. The Daily Mail is notable among British tabloids for rejecting the standard red-top banner order to try to appear more upmarket and respectable, although it does sometimes go in for the full front-page picture or headline characteristic of the working class rags. It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities, and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.

    During the 1930s the Daily Mail was sympathetic to German and Italian fascism as Rothermere was friendly with

    1. both Adolf H!tler and Benito Mussolini. An article by Rothermere printed in the paper also praised the British Union of Fascists leader, Oswald Mosley, for “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine.”

      The Daily Mail’s primary editorial stances are:
      * Anti-immigration
      * Anti-welfare
      * Health sensationalism (particularly with respect to cancer)
      * Anti-government control
      * Anti-LGBT
      * Anti-Europe
      * Pro-complaining about anything and everything

      1. And they are obsessed with house prices.

        “Mr X murdered in his £250,000 home”

        “Sordid love triangle in womans $330,000 home”

        Get my drift.

        1. Spanner1960 30 May 2012, 9:13pm

          “That’s becoz I am considerably richer than yo.” :)

      2. Spanner1960 30 May 2012, 9:12pm

        You forgot “Who has the biggest tits” and “Which Z-list celeb is shagging which.”
        That said, I am anti-immigration and anti-EU, but that doesn’t make me a DM reader. Everyone has their bandwagons.

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 30 May 2012, 9:33pm

    “Leave aside that if this measure passes, churches may have to conduct such services because of human rights law. As both sides of the debate agree, civil gay marriage would represent a hugely significant step to overturning the teachings of millennia by proclaiming the exact moral equivalence of heterosexual and homosexual pairings.”

    First of all, the ban on religious denominations would remain in effect after passage of equal civil marriage, so the human rights law wouldn’t apply. Why doesn’t someone in authority counter that spurious, mendacious claim. Once again, the Daily Mail pandering to fear and homophobia.

    Currently the vote for equal marriage is 195 to 53. If that’s an indicator of the final vote, then this will pass comfortably. For such a desperate rant by the Daily Mail proves that it knows the inevitable is coming. Get over it and get used to it I say. If it doesn’t like gays marrying, then don’t marry one, tough titty.

    1. “First of all, the ban on religious denominations would remain in effect after passage of equal civil marriage, so the human rights law wouldn’t apply.” I suspect the ban you mention will be hard to sustain under human rights law because may constitute a denial of religious freedom to those churches that want to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies. Once one Church is permitted to hold same-sex marriages, THEN those that refuse will probably – sooner or later – be forced to on human rights grounds. The Churches realises this. The Government realises this. Watch them squeal & squirm :-)…..

      1. surely it should be the same rule that applies to divorcees. Church X explicitly opposes remarriage for divorcees so Church X is not required to hold marriages and cannot be forced to. Church A is based on the principle that people should be allowed to divorce and remarry so is allowed to marry people as many times as it likes. Church A’s actions have no bearing on Church X’s obligations. It’s simple. Why should it be any different here?

  21. Robert in S. Kensington 30 May 2012, 9:38pm

    The Daily Mail arguably the champion of yellow journalism. The same paper that supported fascism by the likes of Oswald Moseley and even Hitler. It’s not even journalism, but right wing propaganda.

  22. Great of the Daily Mail to clarify their support for the ‘morally inferior’ civil partnership.

  23. I wish Pink News would give equal coverage to the very positive articles and editorials in the London Evening Standard and The Independent.

    Here’s one from today’s Standard.

    http://goo.gl/Cik5p

    The Standard’s third leader today also calls for David Cameron to make equal marriage a whipped vote (as Nick Clegg has done) rather than allowing a free vote.

  24. Getting back to the topic in hand, when are we going to hear if Labour MPs will be whipped to vote pro-equality?

  25. Here’s another Evening Standard news item about Lord Brown, the ex-BP chairman, referring to an interview on this morning’s Today programme on Radio 4.

    http://goo.gl/sfoKx

    Listen to an extended version of the R4 interview: http://goo.gl/3QvCn

  26. “…to overturning the teachings of millennia by proclaiming the exact moral equivalence of heterosexual and homosexual pairings”.

    Daily Fail believes that gay relationships (and gay people in general) are morally inferior. How surprising.

  27. Gay activist Paul Mitchell 31 May 2012, 1:55am

    Typical headline making media bet-up.

    The words “husband” and “wife” have not disappeared. In fact I myself a full man would like a “husband”!

    Same with “mum” and “dad” have not disappeared.

    Same with “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” have not disappeared.

    Better words are “parents”, “partners” and “spouses” – they just sound more inclusive and better for the 21st century!

    1. A “full man”? Are you being transphobic?

      1. Was transgender mentioned in his comments?

        Surely, you are jumping to conclusions and reading something in that comment that is not obviously there?

        A very Daily Fail type approach to claiming illiberalism!

        1. Why the need to say ‘full man’ – as opposed to what? What does the commentator consider to not be a ‘full man’?

          Bog off with your ‘claims’

  28. Gay activist Paul Mitchell 31 May 2012, 1:58am

    Gay men against gay marriage running a paper. Well I never thought that would happen??!!

    Why are some gay men against gay marriage anyway? What is their justifiable excuse?

    1. Something to do with conforming to heterosexuality? Apparently. Who knows!

    2. Self Loathing.

    3. Spanner1960 31 May 2012, 1:47pm

      You find fckwits in all walks of life.
      Gay men are not immune, I’ve met plenty.

  29. “The Daily Mail has published a leader article today criticising the deputy prime minister’s intention to whip the party’s MPs”

    Nothing to say about the article per se but I do love the visions the above paragraph conjours up!

  30. Anti Widdecombe 31 May 2012, 6:50am

    Blah blah blah. You know what, fine! Let’s let the LibDems have a free vote on the issue because I am almost certain that every LibDem would vote Yes to gay marriage.

    Over turn a mellenia of teachings? Let’s examine this claim:
    1. I thought the earth was only 2000 years old?

    2. In ancient times homosexuality was accepted, particularly when people wern’t following authoritarian religions.

    3. Sure, 50 years ago Britian still executed people. Maybe we should go back to that barbarianism.

    1. Spanner1960 31 May 2012, 2:16pm

      As for the third point, there are many that would disagree with you on that, including me.

      1. The most recent opinion poll on the death penalty in the UK only put support (and this was merely for child killers, those murdering police officers or committing multiple murders) at 38%.

  31. I am more and more convinced that irony is actually less amusing than its radical absence.
    In other news, a bear in the woods accuses a stray dog of poor hygiene.

  32. other peoples morals mean sh*t.

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