Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Former adviser to Nick Clegg criticises ‘bigot’ apology

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. He is right, Clegg had nothing to apologise for. Those people are bigots but also the word was in a draft document, written by someone else and never actually uttered at all by Clegg!

  2. Yup. I was disappointed how easily Cleggy grovelled to the churches for a perceived insult that he never even made. Honestly, that man needs to grow a pair.

    1. de Villiers 20 Sep 2012, 9:12pm

      Votes.

  3. Personally I think the bigotry argument (however tempting to use) should probably be dumped . It just winds people up and to call a Rabbi etc or a 90 yrs old woman bigots becuase they oppose SSM or can’t get their head around it yet isn’t going to go down very well. Go ahead call Bone, Tebbit and the likes bigots (they are and are as tough as old boots) but for heavens sake the person who released that initial draft was an idiot and it wasn’t very diplomatic to have called everyone bigots. I think Clegg ‘s former advisor should probably give it a rest.

    I love the line helped draw up the coalition’s proposals for equal marriage. How many lib dem man hours did that take?

  4. Please correct the headline PN!

  5. I do not see why Nik Clegg had to apologise. He did not do anything wrong. In fact it ws/is the Church of England that is at fault.

  6. They ARE bigots. They have no argument or legitimate objection beyond their own bigoted nonsense.

    But those religious people do love to stroke themselves and self-flagellate and play the victim every chance they can. Fools.

  7. “The only reason to deny a gay couple the right to marry is a belief that their relationship is in some way inferior to a heterosexual one. That’s bigotry.”

    This. How anyone could possibly see it differently is beyond me. Clegg’s a joke.

  8. ““In the end, the only reason to deny a gay couple the right to marry is a belief that their relationship is in some way inferior to a heterosexual one. That’s bigotry.””

    Quite right Richard Reeves, that you for having the backbone to point this out so clearly and emphatically.

    1. Error “that you” should have read “thank you”

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Sep 2012, 1:07pm

    I suppose denying an ethnic group their full rights isn’t bigotry either. How on earth can any rational, logical person say that voting against equal marriage isn’t bigotry when they claim that marriage is solely for one hetero man and woman and gays must be excluded. Now if the shoe were on the other foot, I can’t for the life of me believe that if heteros were denied marriage and reserved only for gay couples, they wouldn’t call that discrimination?

  10. “I have no doubt that the opponents of same-sex marriages will be seen, in fairly short historical order, in the same light as those who opposed mixed-race marriages.”

    I agree. There is no valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage. All there is is lies, misinformation and a reliance on tradition and ‘biblical values’, but only the ones that suit their own prejudices.

    The bible has been used in the past to justify racism and opposition to interracial marriage, so the comparison is very apt.

  11. Craig Nelson 20 Sep 2012, 2:08pm

    He definitely should not have apologised if he didn’t even say it.

    As to whether the term would be apt or not I think that depends on how the term is defined.

    I think it’s a word where “if the cap fits” but you’re never allowed to actually call someone it in a debate. In the case of the C of E and the Roman Catholic church I think the cap sort of fits….. unless they want to define the word differently of course.

  12. Cardinal Capone 20 Sep 2012, 4:19pm

    Maybe the compromise is to refer to a point of view as bigotted, rather than a person as a bigot. That way it is not an ad hominem attack.

    1. I see where your going with that, however I can’t agree.

      To say that is pandering to the the very people who are intolerant.

      Isn’t someone who has a bigoted view, an actual bigot because that is what they think. If they don’t like to be called that, then stop having a bigoted view point.

      I don’t see why we should pander to them.

  13. Richard Reeves, you are right, you are right.

    Well done, for speaking out!

  14. “”Religious bigots come in many different shapes and forms — depending on whose divine authority they presume to possess — but a common ideology that binds them across the world is stupidity.”
    (Amish Raj Mulmi, The Kathmandu Post)

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