Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Alex Salmond: Stonewall wrong to call Cardinal O’Brien a ‘bigot’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. O’Brien wishes to use the force of law to impose anti-LGBT legislation that would lead us to being second class citizens with fewer rights and liberties than straight people. Not only is “bigot” apt, it is mild compared to what we should be calling him.

    1. “The Stonewall Awards are a unique chance to celebrate the enormously positive contribution made by so many. But our Bigot of the Year award is reserved for one individual who has gratuitously caused distress and anguish by demeaning and deriding gay people and their families. All of the nominees for Bigot of the Year have gone well beyond what any normal person would call a decent level of public discourse. This year’s winner – Cardinal Keith O’Brien – has, in just the past 12 months, compared gay people to slave owners and child abusers.

      Happily, thanks to your support and the work of our other incredible nominees, these voices of hatred are becoming ever more shrill and isolated.”

    2. JosephChrist 3 Nov 2012, 6:32pm

      Check out afer.org “marriage new watch” slams people like O’Brien

  2. Chris Vogel 2 Nov 2012, 3:24pm

    Just because it is part of some religious dogma doesn’t save it from being stupid, malicious, wrong, and bigoted. In fact, those things seem to go with religion very nicely. Religion is evidence to the fact that people are capable of believing anything at all. What a joke that this clown calls himself “Christian”. How strange that religious fanatics also demand that we respect them and their idiotic assertions, when obviously no respect is due. Still, better than the old days; modern secular govenments do not permit the Roman church its traditional responses to difference: torture and mass murder.

    1. It’s amazing how religious belief hasn’t learn from the very evils they gave note to inside their bible… The ideas dealing with slavery is one point of evidence inside the Ten Commandments that show how nasty a thought can be evil that condone the suppression/oppression of any people. Still trying to enforce other evil ideas while claiming to be christian, seems to me to be where the true evil exist. The phrase “I love you, but hate your ways” is, when applied to both sides, mean displeasure, dislike, hatred.

  3. Garry Cassell 2 Nov 2012, 3:29pm

    “BIGOT” should be branded in his forehead…

    1. I can think of something else more apt that could be scrawled on his forehead… preferably with an indelible marker pen.

  4. The Halcyon 2 Nov 2012, 3:29pm

    Big words, from Toad of Toad Hall

  5. Cardinal O’Brien is an individual who makes damaging, unsupportable comments about the whole gay community. Stonewall is a representative group that is highlighting the damaging language and behaviour of individuals and saying that it is unacceptable. The two couldn’t be more different. If the Bigots had a shred of evidence to support their “beliefs” then there wouldn’t be a need to call them to account for their behaviour. Anyone who says the Bigot of the Year category is offensive validates the behaviour of the nominees.

  6. Tom Cotner 2 Nov 2012, 3:33pm

    It seems that the people who use the most bigoted speech toward LGBT people are the people who scream the loudest when their own ox is gored.
    They may not consider themselves bigots, but they certainly act in a bigoted manner – and would throw us all under the bus given half a chance.
    If it walks, talks, quacks, etc. like a duck, then most likely it’s a duck. Same for bigots.

  7. Poor little bully. Don’t like it when the object of those you attack fight back.

    Get a spoon and eat my h-ars-e.

  8. Forget equality now my friends. The hypocrisy and hatred are now only just beginning to bubble up to the surface. Scotland going backwards at the first opportunity as usual. And in case anyone is wondering, I am an Edinburger myself. Watch out for the backlash. It’s well on its way.
    Thanks Ruth.

    1. I wonder what Salmond’s motives are in speaking out like this. He speaks out to condemn calling a homophobe a bigot, yet he’s never spoken out to condemn homophobia itself when it comes to people like Brian Souter, or his own MSPs and government ministers.

      1. Good point, BennieM.

        1. Thanks, Gazza!

  9. What would happen if the cardinal publicised racial slurs?

    Would it be harsh to call him a racist and would Salmond defend the cardinal? One rule for one; one rule for another – it’s disgusting.

    1. That’s a question I often ask people who defend the right of homophobes to their opinions. I never get an answer.

      I wonder if Alex Salmond and the SNP would accept money from someone who had spent £1 million to keep a racist law on the statute books. I think we all know the answer to that, yet the SNP are happy to accept millions from Brian Souter because it’s okay to be homophobic as that means you’re just expressing a personal opinion.

      1. I Just lost a lot of respect for Alex Salmond! why cant he stay quiet if he dont agree with the reward. But i think that in a (bad) way he was trying to say that taking the bait to someones bad comments can make thinks worse.

        But if i am wrong and i suspect i may be. then i wish someone with strong leadership skills, is very smart, and shows integrity an (equality ally) would challenge him to the leadership? (got a favorite but i doubt they would run against him. :( )

        But

        But i think the SNP took the money not thinking about Souters views on social issues. As he may support the economic polices of the party. But if Brian Souter wants to complain about not getting his own way, then i wold let him! If he isnt happy then he should complain with some other party.

        1. The SNP should have thought very carefully before accepting Souter’s money in 2007 (they’ve took more since then), but on tv that same night, Salmond was asked if he had thought about the consequences of accepting Souter’s money and he smugly replied, “Not for a second.” I will NEVER forget that footage. That was the day I stopped supporting and voting for the SNP.

          Even if they hadn’t already dropped policy to suit him (bus re-regulation), it is unnacceptable to take his money simply because he is a homophobe.

          As I say, they would never accept money from someone who was as racist or anti-semitic as Souter is homophobic, just so long as their economic policies matched the SNPs, so why it is okay to take money from a homophobe?

          1. Yeah i to am fed up with Salmonds two faced chameleon like political personality! I have just begun to notice this. I love the party, but not the antiequality members that put out a bad image for the party!!

            I also am beginning to think that with Salmond the party is going to lose votes. But i have noticed that in resent years more and more progressives are being elected who are part of the party and they seem to be in the majority. i will support the progressives in the party like Nicola Sturgeon and Mike Russell But not backward people like Cunningham and her minions.!!!

            But the solution is simple
            I suggest that new leadership is needed

          2. You do make a good point, Charlie, but I’m afraid I’m a bit more militant in my views. I don’t particularly see people such as those you’ve mentioned as progressives. I still see them as people who are happy to accept money from Souter, and let catholic adoption agencies flout equality law, and sit next to homophboes in the party and government without saying anything at all about any of it. I can only conclude they are putting their own personal ambitions above any principles they might hold.

          3. And remember, when Salmond does finally step down or is pushed out as leader, there’s no guarantee that Nicola Sturgeon or another progressive will take over.

            Roseanna Cunningham remains an inexplicably popular figure in the party and was Deputy Leader under John Swinney’s brief period as leader. She was actually expected to win the leadership when Swinney stood down in 2004 (I think it was around then), but then Salmond suddenly announced he was standing, after ruling it out, and he won instead.

            Cuningham could easily run again and win. That wouldn’t say much for the SNP’s membership then, would it?

          4. I hope she dont win. But if she did run and won i would hand in my membership. But i really think that in a potential matchup Nicola would win. She has proven herself to be a competent leadership figure and she is serious, ambitious but likable at the same time. Glasgow, the North East and the lothian member vote i could see going in her favour, in a run. (if she ran off course) I to am a militant for equality and go nuts when i see inequality. If any of those run jobs ran and won that would be the last straw with my membership.

            But im going to try and stay positive and hope that in two years from now the SNP is being led by a leader that does genuinely believes in equality for all. :D

          5. I also hope that the next leader of the SNP will not be one of the many homophobes in the party. I do think Sturgeon is most likely to win the leadership but there’s no guarantee.

            Just on your point on Sturgeon being well liked, just as many people dislike her too. A lot of elderly people I know dislike her because they feel she was a bad Health Minister. To be honest, they’d feel the same about any other MSP who was Health Minister too, but it does mean that Sturgeon is not universally liked.

          6. I think its due to her progressive views on social issues. But as health secretary i think she did really well.

          7. The elderly people I know who don’t like Sturgeon feel that way about her because they blame her for the state of the NHS and the problems they have getting treatment, seeing doctors, waiting times etc. They blame her because she was the Health Minister for the last 5 years, not because she holds progressive social views – not all elderly people are conservative, some of them hold progressive views too! As I said earlier, they’d probably feel the same had it been someone else who was Health Minister. It does mean, however, that Sturgeon is not universally liked.

          8. In my local area, the previous Lab/Lib were planning on opening a minor A&E in Sturgeon’s home town of Irvine. The SNP fought the 2007 election on stopping 2 other A&E departments closing down, in Ayr & somewhere else I can’t recall off the top of my head. When the SNP won in 2007, they kept those 2 A&E departments open which meant the plans to open the new one in Irvine fell through. A lot of people I know blame Nicola Sturgeon directly for that.

  10. The actually expect us to be passive victims. The should count themselves luckey we are not burning down churches and rioting.

    1. That There Other David 2 Nov 2012, 9:10pm

      I’m sure they’d love it if a few of us did just that. They’d all be running down to the fire to cover themselves in soot and act like victims. Martyrdom is hard-wired into Christians, even more so with Catholics and their Saint this and Saint that.

  11. I’m very disappointed (but not in the least surprised) that Alex Salmond is defending O’Brien’s homophobic bigotry.

    Salmond has never spoken out to condemn homophobia when it occurs in his own party – Bill Walker, John Mason, Roseanna Cunningham.

    When it comes down to a choice between religion and gay equality, the SNP always pick religion such as St. Margaret’s adoption agency or even the caveat for extra religious protections on the SNP going ahead with marriage equality.

    I realise that some people may think the SNP going ahead with marriage equality (which I recognise is a big step forward) will mean they cannot be criticised on their generally poor gay equality record, but they still have a lot to do on that front.

    1. I agree with you BennieM and i strongly support LGBT adoption rights but i think the religous adoption thing its a difficult issue because if they are forced to adopt to people they dont want to, then i Strongly fear that they will complain and protest by saying the same hateful thinks they use to attack marriage equality and GAIN support from some of the general public who will fell sorry for them.

      So its a catch two situation sadly :(, i complety agree with you but just fear what the relgious groups would do if they were forced to adopt out.

      Sorry, if im coming accross as argumentative, by the way not meaning to. :(

      1. I don’t think religous adoption agencies is a difficult issue at all.

        There were 2 catholic adoption agencies in Scotland when Westminster brought in the Goods & Services Equality Act (or whatever it’s correct title is) in 2007. St Margaret’s in Glasgow and St. Andrew’s in Edinburgh.

        The SNP government asked Westminster if they could be indefinately exempt from the law and Westminster rightly refused. St. Andrew’s simply complied with the law and the catholic church cut all ties with it. It’s still operating today.

        The SNP government helped and advised St. Margaret’s how to use a loophole in the law so they could continue to refuse service to gay people – a situation which still stands today.

        If St. Andrew’s wasn’t forced to do anything they didn’t want to, why would St. Margaret’s have been forced to do anything it didn’t want? If they felt so strongly against it then they could always close down altogether.

        1. I complety agree i just fear that the churches pour millions into an anti-gay campaign and broadcast messages to the public about how they are being treated and turn people against LGBT people.

          Thats my biggest fear! and perhaps thats what some of pro-equality ministers fear also.

          1. I understand what you are saying, and it is a given that religous bigots will make it into an issue of discrimination against religion if someone were to force St. Margaret’s hand and challenge it’s position.

            But we can’t let homophobia flourish just because we’re scared of the reaction of standing up to it.

            As a supporter and maybe even member of the SNP, does it make you feel proud that your party in devolved government intervened in reserved law, which was not in their remit, to ensure that the only adoption agency left in Britain to be allowed to refuse gay people is in Scotland?

            Whatever happens in the indepence referendum, I want Scotland to be progressive and forward looking, not the last refuge for religious bigots.

          2. Now that you’v said that i am now beginning to realize your right. that iv thought it through i i don’t care what the religious organizations think If other organizations cant discriminate then why should they ?

          3. I really hope I’m not forcing my views onto anyone, that’s the last thing I want! I just feel very strongly about gay equality and I feel that there is no argument that can justify not giving us full equality.

            I’m also so sick of religious privilege, especially when it comes to gay equality. They get an opt out that nobody else does, and while I once agreed with that, this last year with all the bigotry we’ve been subjected to by religious figures has changed my mind.

            And I’m just so angry that the First Minister of my country sees fit to stick up for a homophobic bigot when he has never spoken out against homophobia whatsoever – he rates religious bigotry over gay equality.

          4. I couldnt agree more.

      2. Also, where do you draw the line? If it’s okay for a Catholic adoption agency to refuse to provide service to gay people, then why not a supermarket checkout assistant? Should he or she be allowed to refuse to serve me if I’ve got a copy of Attitude in my basket?

        In my opinion, no public services like this should be handled by anyone other than government, whether it’s local, devolved or central government. A council social work department wouldn’t be allowed to refuse people for being gay, so why should a catholic adoption agency?

        1. As i said my only concern was the big anti-gay campaign that would be mounted to trying to get sympathy trying to turn people against us.

          Apart from that i agree completely

          1. It is a legimate concern you have, but I think that’s it’s not enough of a concern to do nothing – we need to stand up to homophobia and discrimination wherever it occurs.

            By the way, I don’t think you’re being argumentative at all – if you were argumentative, what on earth would that make me!

            I hold very strong views when it comes to gay equality and I have no time for politicians who claim to be pro-gay equality when they’re not comitted to it 100%.

            Saying nothing when there’s even the slightest hint of homophobia in their party is as good as perperating it in the first place.

          2. Yeah i am becoming sick and tired of it to. I just wish Homophobia would melt away and become history.

          3. Homophobia will become a thing of the past at some point in the future. It will be long time, certainly not in my life time (I’m 33) but it will only be consigned to history if we challenge it right now.

            If you look at the civil rights movement in the 60’s, it didn’t eridicate racism overnight, it’s still exists today, but less so because of what happened all those years ago.

          4. Yeah your right there. Its sad that in this day and age people are still being discriminated. I hope that by the time i am 33 in 14 years (im 17) LGBT equality will be so much closer than it is today. :)

          5. I have no doubt that we will have full legal equality within 14 years, in fact I think it will be a lot sooner than that.

            But it will take a lot longer to gain full equality and acceptence in society in general.

    2. Robert Brown 4 Nov 2012, 12:44pm

      You also have to look at whom the SNP are receiving donations from . . . Brian Soutar for one at a cost of £500,000 . . . if the SNP were really for full equality and supporting the LGBT community, then they would pay it back.

      http://www.rainbow-citizen.com

      1. Souter has given the SNP over 1 million pounds since 2007, not just £500,000.

  12. Getting a bit tired of all this pussyfooting sympathy towards religion now, these politicians need to decide which side their on and stick with it.

    Let’s face it the notion that equal marriage is wrong and, therefore, should be denied to a significant minority of people is underpinned by the belief that a ghost screwed a teenage virgin 2 milleniums ago who then birthed a bastard child who later sacrificed himself to himself in order to forgive his creations for simply living up to their original design. Enough said!

  13. Peter Robertson 2 Nov 2012, 3:43pm

    The statement from Alex Salmond is another example of the religious getting a free pass. Calling this odious cleric a bigot is not a personal insult; it is simply the use of the correct term to describe his behaviour.

  14. Bigot is a clean word and is pretty exact in this case. I can think of worse worse to be called for doing the same thing.

    1. Considering the unpleasant rhetoric used and the actions that got him nominated, as well as the recent campaign by Catholics to get the banks to stop funding the Stonewall awards ceremony then I think it might be fair not only to call Keith O’Brien a bigot but an extremely unpleasant and vindictive one at that.

  15. Cardinal Capone 2 Nov 2012, 3:50pm

    The award is helpful if it helps the Cardinal re-assess his behaviour and choice of words, and consider whether they were in themselves helpful and “Christ-like”.

    However, if he or his church are trying now to attack Stonewall financially, it suggests self-examination is not a strong point.

  16. I for one am getting sick up to the back teeth with these religious apologists like Alex Salmond. Why the hell doesn’t he take to task the hate filled rhetoric of Keith O’Brien? Oh, I see, we now have to give equal weight to racists without challenge, misogynists, anti-Semites. Oh but they are different aren’t they Salmond. The Cardinal can’t possibly be a bigot can he? He can hate all that he likes.
    Get lost Salmond. You’d have been better keeping your trap shut in the same way it’s always shut when there’s homophobia in your own party

    1. Salmond clearly wants to throw Catholics a bone after upsetting them by going ahead with marriage equality and O’Brien refusing to speak to him – he’s clearly trying to build some bridges there. Remember, Salmond likes having “important” people like O’Brien on his speed dial. He’s also got his independence referendum to think of, every vote will count.

  17. Gays should keep quiet and let religious leaders trample all over them?

  18. Forget the affront of the word “bigot”.

    We should be throwing all we have at an evil religious hierarchy that has contributed to LGBT people being persecuted for over 2000 years, including being tortured, burnt at the stake, forced into a life of celibate depression, loneliness and self-hatred, prevented from playing a full part in society, blamed for the worst of society’s catastrophes – (remember the word “Sodomite? We still get called that.) – and turned into figures of derision.

    And that’s what they have done to LGBT people. Just consider how many people they have screwed up by their condemnation of masturbation, and their repressive attitude towards sex in general. And how many unwanted pregnancies caused, and cases of HIV transmission caused, by their utterly stupid condemnation of contraception.

    Religious bigotry is one of the greatest evils in our society. We won’t get rid of it by being oh-so-polite to its worst advocates.

  19. Sonewall has achieved its purpose. A “BIGOT” has been revealed in all his “frocked finery” (the French call it “travesty”!) and politicians who should really learn to keep their traps shut, have been revealed for the mealy-mouthed fence sitters they have so long trained for. Maybe, next year there should be an all-encompassing category ….. “Human Joke of the Year”!

  20. Bill (Scotland) 2 Nov 2012, 4:15pm

    Alex Salmond has the infernal impertinence to describe the bigot Cardinal Keith O’Brien as “Scotland’s cardinal”! He is nothing of the kind; the UK and Scotland are secular democracies, not some backward theocracies and just because the Catholic ‘sky fairy cult’ chooses to have a senior henchman in Scotland does not make him anything to do with Scotland as a nation. Salmond should learn his place.

    He should also stop his SNP from accepting donations from serial and notorious homophobe and Stagecoach boss Brian Souter!

    Do people who support the SNP really understand the kind of backward, homophobe-tolerating country that Salmond and his ilk want to turn us into? The SNP has quite a few folk in it who, just like Salmond’s Cardinal O’Brien, are bigots and homophobes. A period of silence from you, Mr Salmond, would be welcome!

    1. I agree with what you say, Bill. There are quite a few people in the SNP who are horribly homophobic and yet Salmond says nothing about them – and not just backbenchers.

      In fact, he even gave Roseanna Cunningham a plum job in government a couple of years after her offensive speech about gay people “going against 1000 years of nature’s desgin” and her ammendment to make it illegal for gay people to adopt (which was thankfully defeated).

      He also allowed her to refuse to carry out her ministerial duties when it comes to marriage equality legislation. It falls under her department as Community Safety & Legal Affairs Minister (a junior minister in the Justice Department), yet she refused to do it.

      Although Nicola Sturgeon fronted it, it was still the Justice Department staff who handled the consultation. So it is clear that Salmond has allowed her to shirk her responsibliities, for which she gets paid a great deal of public money, just because she is a homophobe and nothing more.

      1. Actually, it was LABOUR MSP’s who voted for the RC Church ‘opt-out’ re their adoption agencies in the Scots Parliament in 2007 and were defeated by the SNP who voted AGAINST the opt-out. Labour/Lib-Dem were the Executive at the time. Cunningham also introduced the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications ( Scotland) Act 2012 which created new statutory offences against homophobia. She spoke at the Crown Office Hate Crime Conference this year about the need to take a firm stand against homophobia, particularly in sport.

        Whilst I disagree with her religious views over marriage, she is not alone in the Parliament either within the SNP, Labour or Tory ranks. Fortunately the majority of MSP’s across the political spectrum support legalising same-sex marriage. It was also happen under an SNP Bill.

        1. The Goods & Services law I’m referring to was a Westminster law, so no MSP, Labour or otherwise could have voted for or against it. You are the second person on a PN thread to deliberately try to confuse laws to “prove” me wrong about this.

          Roseanna Cunningham IS a homophobe. She said gay people “go against 1000 years of nature’s design” and she is the minister responsible for the same-sex marriage legislation yet she has refused to have anything to do with it from the outset, even though her department’s staff are still the ones dealing with it while the Health Minister fronts it.

          The Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill you mention was not purely a bill about homophobia, that was only one part of it. Just because she has done one small positive thing for gay people doesn’t mean she’s not a homophobe.

          Finally, whenever I criticise the SNP, their supporters always say “but Labour are doing it too” – that doesn’t excuse the SNP.

          1. Actually you are wrong. The ‘opt-out’ was part of Labours Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill. Not the Equality Act of 2006 which you refer to. Labour MSP Michael McMahon introduced an amendment to the Bill which proposed giving Catholic adoption agencies a loophole to refuse gay couples. This was defeated by the majority of MSP’s.

            Appeals to alter the Equality Act on behalf of Catholic Care have been made to the Westminster Government since 2007 by many MP’s, Labour and Tory across the UK and some MSP’s (Labour and SNP). The Act remains intact and after a 5 years appeals battle, Catholic Care have lost their appeal.

            No-one is criticising you for criticising the SNP. However, counting the number of times you have posted your views on this thread alone, no-one could accuse you of bias!

          2. Alan, I’m not talking about the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill, I’m talking about the Goods & Services Sexual Orientation Regulations Bill – please see my link below.

            I’ve never defended Labour or any other party or made any claims that the SNP was the only party to want exemptions for catholic adoption agencies. However, it was the SNP government advising St. Margaret’s how to use the loophole which led directly to them being legally allowed to refuse service to gay people.

            I have also explained several times before that I’m particularly hard on the SNP on gay issues because I used to be a loyal SNP supporter and felt let down by them when they took Souter’s money. That alone was enough for me, as a gay man, to stop supporting them.

            http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1263/contents/made

          3. So why would you leave out the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill when it related directly to the legalisation of same-sex adoption? The Act was passed MINUS any opt-out for faith adoption agencies. Pleas to the UK Government were made by Labour, Tory, UKIP, BNP and many others to use the Equality Act (2006) to exempt Catholic Adoption agencies as a consequence. ALL of them recommended changes to catholic adoption agencies constitutions (on advice of a Tory). St Margaret’s heeded this advice however it has been recently shown in appeal courts that this will not stand up to legal scrutiny. Yes, by all means criticise any SNP involvement in this, but don’t try and lead us all to believe that the rest of the political elite weren’t equally, if not moreso, involved.

          4. Alan, I have never claimed that Labour or the Tories or any other other party did not want exemptions for adoption agencies. I single out the SNP because it was the advice of their Education minister at the time, Fiona Hyslop, which directly led to St. Margaret’s taking advantage of the loophole in the law. It wasn’t Labour or the Tories who met with St. Margaret’s several times and told them how to use the loophole – it was the SNP.

        2. And I’ve already said that I recognise it’s the SNP who are bringing forward same-sex marriage. As I do not support any one party in particular, I honestly don’t care which party does it, I just want it to happen. However, the fact that the SNP is taking a massive step for gay equality like this does not suddenly excuse any other homophobia within the SNP.

          I understand that you are an SNP supporter (maybe even member) and don’t like it when your party is criticised, but please recognise when that criticism is appropriate and don’t just blindly defend your party no matter what.

          When homophobia occurs in the SNP, do something to tackle it. Don’t just defend a nasty, homphobic person like Cunningham who thinks you and I go against 1000 years of nature’s design, fight it from within and get rid of bigots like her.

          1. I wasn’t criticising you BennieM or your views about the SNP. You are perfectly entitled to them and to express them. I don’t agree with Cunningham’s views on a range of things including marriage as I mentioned. I do agree with her Offensive Behaviour Act which is very significant in tackling homophobia at football matches (although you may not think so). You like to lay the blame over catholic adoption agencies at the door of the SNP however I am only pointing out that such things go much wider than a few individuals (mostly Labour ones).

            Since you express the concern that change should come from within, perhaps you could join the SNP and begin that crusade? Unfortunately I don’t align myself to any political party and usually vote for the Greens.

          2. Alan, I did not say that the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill was not important in tackling homophobia, I simply pointed out that it was not a law purely about homophobia. I felt your original comment could be read as if it was a law purely about homophobia and I was just pointing out that it wasn’t.

            I’ve already tried raising the issue of homophobia with many people in the SNP – elected representatives and party officials. Half ignored me, the rest replied denying there was any homophobia at all within the SNP, while ignoring any specific examples I pointed out.

          3. You’re perfectly right about the Offensive Behaviour Act being more than just about homophobia however it was included by Cunningham. I’m just pointing out that her views aren’t exclusive and certainly not because of the political party she belongs to. Sadly there are worse than her.

        3. This is what I’m referring to regarding the SNP government advising St. Margaret’s adoption agency to get around Westminster equality law:

          http://www.heraldscotland.com/snp-and-catholic-church-s-secret-plan-to-sidestep-legislation-on-gay-adoptions-1.828188

          1. Scottish Labour Ministers did exactly the same and more. They wanted the UK Labour Government to change the Equality Act prior to it coming into force back in 2006/7 to have a specific opt-out for Catholic adoption agencies. Labour introduced the amendment to the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill to give Catholic adoption agencies an ‘opt-out’ which was defeated by the SNP (and others). Catholic Care who runs the agencies have had cross-party support and lobbyists who have tried to have the Equality Act amended. Fortunately this hasn’t happened and Catholic Care have repeatedly lost court appeals to refuse gay couples.
            Yes you are right to be critical however the whole adoption agency issue is by no means specific to any political party. Just saying.

          2. As I’ve said in an earlier comment, I’m not talking about the adoption law you are referring to.

            On your point about Scottish Labour Ministers wanting an exemption for catholic adoption agencies, their requests were denied by the UK government as you point out yourself, therefore it did not lead to a situation where a catholic adoption agency can still legally refuse service to gay people to this day.

            The SNP government advising St. Margaret’s DID lead to a situation where a catholic adoption agency CAN still legally refuse gay people to this day.

          3. Actually it was a Tory who provided the ‘advice’ you refer to regarding making a constitutional change in an attempt to allow them to practice within the Equality Act (2006). As I mentioned above, the SNP were not alone in approaching the Labour UK Government on behalf of the Catholic agencies. That said, it is a disgrace that any politician did so! As for St Margaret’s, albeit they did change their constitution, it has been proven in court (following a 4/5 year appeal) that they are NOT exempt from the Equality Act (now 2010) so they can’t refuse same sex couples from applying for adoption. They may defy this and it would take a legal action against them to shut them down.

          4. Fiona Hyslop, the SNP Education minister at the time ws the one who met with St. Margaret’s more than once to advise them how to use the loophole.

            However, you claim it was a Tory despite the fact they weren’t in power at Holyrood or Westminster at the time. I’d be interested to know which Tory advised St. Margaret’s and why given they were not in government.

        4. Alan, you say that you disagree with Roseanna Cunningham’s religious views on marriage – does that mean you think it’s okay that she can refuse to carry out her ministerial duties, for which she gets paid an awful lot of tax payer’s money, on account of those same religious views?

          What do you honestly think of Roseanna Cunningham giving a speech in the Scottish Parliament saying gay people “go against 1000 years of nature’s design” and then tabling an ammendment which would have made it illegal for gay people to adopt – the only group of people she felt should not be allowed to adopt?

          Would you excuse her religious views if they were about black or jewish people rather than gay people?

          I’d be very interested to hear your answer to these three questions.

          1. I do disagree with Cunningham’s views on marriage (and and other issues), as I said. Which is why she would not have been my ideal choice to have been in charge of the Scottish Governments plans for same sex marriage. Fortunately this was given to Nicola Sturgeon who supports same sex marriage. I am sure Cunningham would have had others things to be getting on with.

            Three amendments were put forward by MSP’s re the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill, including the ‘opt-out’ for catholic adoption agencies by Labour MSP Michael McMahon which was ultimately defeated.

            As for Cunningham, then shadow Education Minister, Fiona Hyslop MSP stated,

            “The Scottish National Party rejects the amendments in Roseanna Cunningham’s name and will vote against them, because they do not reflect the SNP’s view”

          2. Alan, I’m glad you disagree with Roseanna Cunningham’s views on marriage, but it’s not just on marriage that she holds views like this. She thinks gay people should not be allowed to adopt children and that we “go against 1000 years of nature’s design”.

            You say she would not be your ideal choice to be in charge of the same sex marriage plans, but can I ask if you think she should be a government minister at all given her views?

            I’d also like to ask if you think it’s acceptable for a government minister to refuse to carry out her duties due to her personal views? The fact she has other things to be getting on with is no excuse for her refusing to handle the same sex marriage legislation, which is her responsibilitiy as Community Saftey and Legal Affairs Minister. The reason she is the minister responsible is because marriage and family law fall into her remit.

            Would you dismiss her views and refusal of ministerial duties so easily if they were about black people or jewish people?

          3. The problem, as I see it, is not unique to Cunningham. If I were a party leader, I would not have anyone in my party who espoused views like hers. I agree with you on all counts when it comes to politicians (although I blame all parties) supporting any anti-gay agenda. They all need to deal with this. We all need to unite and campaign against the main political parties who continually ‘defend’ these individuals on the basis of their ‘religious’ beliefs. It would not be for the first time that the SNP distanced itself from Cunningham’s views but why have her at all? Then again the constituency used to vote for Tory Nicky Fairbairn so maybe she is ‘electable’.

            As for ministerial responsibility, they are only ‘oversee-ers’. As per above comments, I’d rather Cunningham wasn’t there at all. That said I’m glad Sturgeon was put in charge over marriage. I think it was a good move by the SNP and indicated their support for equal marriage.

          4. I’m glad we agree on some things! However, I think that a government minister of any party should not be allowed to refuse to carry out her duties because of her religious beliefs. Would you excuse her refusing to deal with a race equality law, for example? Having Nicola Sturgeon handle it may have seemed like a solution but now that she’s been moved to a different department, it’s in the hands of yet another minister, Alex Neil. What if he refuses to do it too? Who’d deal with it then? He was rumoured to have threatened to resign a couple of months back if the SG went ahead with it.

          5. Would it not have been much simpler to have the minister who is actually responsible for it to handle it? Since she refused, she should have been sacked. It’s like a game of pass the parcel, trying to find a minister who’ll do it.

  21. Bet they wished they hadn’t made Ms Davidson their ‘politician of the year’ now :-)

  22. “Personal insults are not conducive to a proper and dignified debate on the important issue of equality in Scotland.”

    Debate? what debate?
    Exactly when has Keith O’Brien attempted anything approaching meaningful debate regarding same sex marriage equality?

  23. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Nov 2012, 4:21pm

    Yet Salmond, in fact every politican throughout the UK has NEVER denounced O’Brien’s remarks, among others. That O’Brien asked the SNP to stop donating to the charity speaks volumes about his bigotry. If we called for the government to stop giving financial aid to faith based catholic schools, he’d be the first to scream abuse of religious freedom and make some negative statement about gay people in the process. Bigotry is a one street when religion is in the mix. They can get away with insulting, disgusting language and we have to sit back and take it?

    Next time someone makes a slur against an ethnic or religious group let us all remind the Salmond’s and O’Briens of this world that it isn’t racism or anti-religion but people expressing their views and beliefs, and see where that goes. Salmond should be deeply ashamed of himself for defending O’Brien which is what this really is.

  24. Why aren’t all these people standing up when the Catholics say vile offensive things about us?

    Oh yes, it’s only an insult against straight people. We deserve to be dehumanised and attacks

    The Catholic church is bigoted, the cardinal is bigoted. if they don’t want to be called bigots they should stop acting like bigots

  25. Kathryn Howie 2 Nov 2012, 4:38pm

    Having had extravagant inaccurate language used against me, my sex and sexuality by a number of catholic bishops over the years, I can truthfully say that O’Brian is the worst by a good stretch and due to his supposed pastoral role in our society is defiantly the winner of the wholly accurate term BIGOT.
    The fact that he has influence in the teaching of our children in 373 Scottish catholic schools funded from public funds is not a good thing.
    Some thing I read on a US site yesterday – “…if this guy had an enema – you could bury him in a shoe box” – immediately thought of our “esteemed” cardinal.
    Big Eeek is often scathingly accurate (with an added touch of humour), but I think he is wrong on this – should have kept it zipped.

  26. GulliverUK 2 Nov 2012, 4:39pm

    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

    ^^ sorry, I’m not getting how this doesn’t fit the Catholic church and other homophobes and racists. Let’s not stop at homophobia – they want to control womens’ reproductive organs, and tell us what we can and can’t watch on the TV, and I’ve read numerous articles that their churches are racist also.

    The word, is, correctly used.

  27. ‘Bigot’ = offensive and wrong. “an outrage”
    ‘Grotesque’ = absolutely fine, nothing insulting here.

  28. Go for it Stonewall. As a a churchman I think he is a bigot.And a dangerous one at that.

  29. Surprised and disappointed that Salmond’s taken this attitude. I expected more from him.

    Defending a Christian leader who pledges £100k to oppose a civil measure that is none of his business is not a good strategy.

    1. I’m disappointed, but not at all surprised. This is entirely in character for Salmond when it comes to religion vs. gay equality.

      1. Is it? I didn’t realise that. He’s gone down a lot in my estimation.

        1. Yes, I used to think the SNP were a pro-gay equality party until 2007 when they happily accepted half a million quid from Souter. Since then, I’ve discovered a nasty undercurrent of homophobia in the SNP – which goes unchallenged.

          As for Salmond, he’s always put religion above gay equality – or more correctly, he’s put the right of religion to hate gay people above gay equality.

          Look at his stance on catholic adoption agencies, for example. St. Margaret’s in Glasgow is the only one left in Britain which can legally refuse gay people thanks to the intervention of Salmond and his government into a reserved law which was being brought in by Westminster.

          And their pro-marriage equality stance is VERY recent. During their first term in government from 2007-2011, they knocked back the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee to bring in equal marriage 6 times, saying it wasn’t a priority.

    2. He could have at least kept quiet and kept his dignity.

  30. A, J,Mainland 2 Nov 2012, 4:58pm

    You know I try to reason in my mind with this man, some of what he says,
    SEEMS to make sense, but what with his recent whopper with Andrew Neil, and the audacity of his followers to try and point out on BBC, how he must be missunderstanding what was said in his interview, I’m afraid his mask has well and truly been busted by his own actions. He is well and truly making it up as he goes along and Scotland deserves much better.
    By cow towing to that Cardinal
    he has lost any credibility.
    The Cardinal should have been locked up or warned for some of his rehtorick, a dangerous man indeed.

  31. Salmond would sell his Grandmother to gain power.

  32. Sam D. Maloney 2 Nov 2012, 5:09pm

    If he were to respectfully state that his church would not perform same sex unions without denigrating LGBT people, it would be wrong to use that label.
    Instead, this man uses highly defamatory language to describe LGBT people, and makes overheated, apocalyptic pronouncements about what equality would mean. This makes him a bigot, plain and simple.

  33. ‘Bigot’ isn’t an insult – it’s an accurate description of O’Brien. In fact, I’d have gone further and called him a disgusting homophobe. It’s not just that’s he’s against equal marriage, it’s the offensive, vindictive and mendacious language he’s used about LGBT people.

    Salmond is a coward, in my opinion. Who does he think he’s appealing to? The religious? Homophobes?

    1. He obviously feels he needs to make up ground with religious voters after Nicola Sturgeon announced the Scottish government’s plans to legislate for marriage equality. Let’s just hope this isn’t a sign of things to come and Salmond loses his nerve over it.

      1. I thought it was shocking that when the Scotland for marriage protested outside a cabinet meeting Salmond ran out the back door and left.

        But his deputy Nicola Sturgeon had the guts to face the protesters and try to explain that they will NOT be forced to carry out gay marriages and there rights will not be threatened.

        Not a good example of leadership from Alex Salmond??

        http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-cabinet-faces-a-demonstration-on-same-sex-1276753.

        1. My own opinion is that he’s on his way out as leader of the SNP. Not because of this, but all the other stuff that’s been happening recently over the EU legal advice and the Nato vote at conference. I don’t think those 2 things themselves are enough to topple him, but I think it will have been enough for normally loyal MSPs, members and supporters to start asking questions about his leadership.

          It happens to every party and every party leader, so it will happen to Salmond too, in the end. Even ones who appear to leave on their own terms like Tony Blair aren’t really doing so.

          1. Blair was always crooked in my book wish id saw it with Salmond earlier.

            I wish one of his most loyal MSP’s channllenged him for his job. If she challenged him and i would be more than pleased if she defeated him and to see the look on his face when he realizes he’s been put out a job.

        2. Cant find the article that mentioned Salmond running off but found a similar one.

  34. So basically If some vile person said interracial marriage was wrong and someone called them bigoted then thats fine!!!!

    But if then if they saw say gay marriage is wrong, then thats ok?!!

    Im sorry but if someone thinks that two people who love eachother very much but just happened to be of the same gender, are not closely related, want to be committed to each other for the rest of there lives, and what to get married to as a symbol of their love. Is wrong then they are a bigot !!!!

    1. Discrimination against women, blacks and LGBT people is plain wrong!! period.

      1. Clearly not in Salmond’s eyes – when it comes to discrimination against LGBT people at least. I’m sure he’d be the first to condemn discrimination of women and black people, and of course, religious people, which we’ve seen today.

        1. Yeah i do feel sorry for intellectual religious folks though that are open minded and truly peaceful and friendly.

          But Alex Salmond is proving that he is a tool, he doesnt have the guts to stand against discrimination.

          He makes lies and cover ups that hurt his own party and any hopes of Independence :( He certainly doesn’t act like a leader that is for sure.

    2. I apologize for the spelling mistakes, my touch typing to fast without looking at the keyboard sometimes ends up on me making spelling mistakes.

      1. We won’t beat you up this time, Charlie… :D

  35. Salmond doesn’t think we should personally insult Cardinal O’Bigot.

    What about the way O’Brien personally insulted every single gay person with his hate speech?

    Why is the First Minister of Scotland supporting a homophobic bigot rather than denounce him as such?

    Are we seeing Salmond’s true colours showing here?

  36. George Broadhead 2 Nov 2012, 5:24pm

    If anything is “grotesque” it is the Cardinal and, like so many politicians, Salmond is just kowtowing to religionists.

  37. Is this the same Alex Salmon who’s government clearly took a bung from Donald Trump so he could ride roughshod over a local community to build his golf course?

    1. His party is the same one that proposed Brian Souter (a homophobic bigot par excellence) for a knighthood and then got a £500k donation in return. Souter is certainly getting his money’s worth if this statement by Salmond is anything to go by.

      1. And five years ago, they got £500,000 from Brian Souter for dropping their bus re-regulation policy. I see a pattern emerging here.

        If they can drop a long-standing policy like bus re-regulation, which the party membership voted to retain only a few months earlier at conference, then I dread to think what else they might drop to please Souter and keep the cash rolling in to party coffers.

  38. Alex Salmond is wrong.

    O’Brien is a vile bigot.

    1. And so were all the other contenders.

  39. Paul in Brighton 2 Nov 2012, 6:20pm

    Of course, when Cardinal O Brien described same-sex marriage would lead to the destruction of society as we know it, Alex Salmond remained strangely quiet.

    And when Arch Bishop Devine announced that gay men were likely to die earlier than their straight counterparts, Alex Salmond remained silent.

    But when O Brien is quite correctly called a Bigot, Alex speaks up for the supposed oppressed hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

    Clearly he’s out to win back the Catholic vote and get on talking terms with O Brien.

    1. Salmond always remains silent when a homophobe is publicly venting their bigotry – especially when it’s in his own party. Just think of Bill Walker, John Mason Kenneth Gunn, Roseanna Cunningham – all have spouted homophobic views yet Salmond has said absolutely nothing, and in the case of Cunningham, given her a plum post in government as a reward for her disgusting views. He clearly doesn’t see homophobia as being akin to racism or anti-semitism, for example.

    2. GulliverUK 2 Nov 2012, 6:54pm

      If you do an advanced search in Google, bring up news articles from around 2004-2006 vile O’Brien was saying that Civil Partnerships would lead to the complete breakdown of society, him and all the other modern mazi leaders like him. When you think about how murderous and evil the Catholics were in the 1500s and onwards, it’s not at all surprising Hitler was able to rise to power – he was a Catholic also — look it up, he said that his plans were inspired by his Catholic faith. Yet most Catholics are liberal in nature, a live and let live ideology and are in favour of equality and social justice, yet the Catholic leaders, and the Pope, are utterly destroying the Catholic faith. As much as I want them stripped from office, I don’t want the Catholic faith destroyed, but restored to be a force for good. At the moment I can’t think of anything more evil than the corrupt form of Catholicism practised by these leaders.

      Salmond should not be defending their vile words.

      1. The “protest-ants” had come to a similar conclusion in the 1500s

  40. Pavlos Prince of Greece 2 Nov 2012, 6:25pm

    What next? Has Mr. Salmond change his position on same-sex marriage, and is this funny story with “Scotland`s Cardinal’ just his not very clever alibi for that?

    1. That’s my worry. He was never entirely comfortable with same-sex marriage, leaving it to Nicola Sturgeon. In fact, some news reports here in Scotland claimed that it is really her pet project and she talked him into it.

      1. Pavlos Prince of Greece 2 Nov 2012, 7:12pm

        Catholic Church is a big master of public relations (two thousand years experience anyway) and can play the role of ‘victim’ perfectly. But what about Mr. Salmond, when he has change his pro-gay marriage position indeed? What a role he will play in this case? (I still hope, that marriage equality will come to Scotland very soon, and Mr. Salmond still is in favor of it.)

        1. I hope so too, Pavlos, and I think it probably will. But things like this don’t help! I can’t help but fear the worst!

          1. Pavlos Prince of Greece 2 Nov 2012, 8:07pm

            Yes, so I too. In the epoch of medias like this, every detail can make a very big discussion, its only question of context. Or even became symbolic in the ‘culture war’ (as it was few years ago in Denmark with anti-Islam caricatures).

  41. It’s PC gone mad! If you don’t want to be called a bigot then don’t behave like one!

  42. Another Hannah 2 Nov 2012, 7:32pm

    of course there are those old algations about the R Catholic church, and you have to wonder how far corruption may stretch into it. Maybe some kind of investigation with ex-homesecretary K. Clark into the Conservative MPs and their objections to allegations might be relevant?

  43. “Stonewall were clearly wrong to describe Scotland’s cardinal in these terms, and in any case should reflect on whether pejorative titles like this do anything to enhance their cause.

    “Personal insults are not conducive to a proper and dignified debate on the important issue of equality in Scotland.”

    Alex Salmond is someone I hold in zero regard but, oh my, this is absolutely, 101 per cent, so spot on!

    1. It’s a pity Salmond doesn’t condemn O’Brien’s personal insults to every gay person, then isn’t it? And why doesn’t he stand up to homophobia when it occurs, such as in his own party? Salmond seems to have double standards when it comes to homophobes getting a taste of their own medicine.

    2. Sammy, don’t you get bored with being contrary just for the sake of it? The nasty priest said ugly things about Gay people as they struggle for equality. What’s not bigoted?

      1. When you wake up and realise that everythng you thought, beleved was real is really upside down, inside out and back to front, it is actually quite a relief to be au contraire with many of the views but by no means all – of those who are still in some degree of slumber.

        But thanks for asking all the same, Cal. :)

  44. It’s time for politicians to stop defending the likes of Cardinal O’Brian and to have the guts to start crticising church leaders and the like about their attitutde towards gay people.

    1. Pavlos Prince of Greece 2 Nov 2012, 9:22pm

      Problem is, that political and religious leaders are two parts of same elite of the power, regardless, what a name this elite have (aristocracy, upper class, authorities or representatives of community etc.). So was in all epochs and cultures and all ways will be. Its very natural instinct indeed – to show solidarity with important member of another reigning institution, he will do so with you in similar situation too, and you bout will retain our power. All other social groups must play this eternal game of influence, if wish to be accepted, and gay people are not exception. Sad, but true.

  45. Spanner1960 2 Nov 2012, 7:49pm

    The point of the argument is not whether this God-botherer is a bigot or not, we all know that – it is the public display and bitchiness of it all. Why don’t we vote Nick Griffin “C*nt of year” while we are at it?

    Do we have to lower ourselves to these people’s pathetic level?

    1. That There Other David 2 Nov 2012, 9:14pm

      Now that’s an award ceremony I’d definitely attend. Will there be cake?

  46. This just shows how far we have to go to gain equality. when someone thinks it is okay to defend a homophobe? it would be like Alex Salmond defending a racist and thinking he could get away with it. Someone in power needs to sort this out, these religious leaders are getting away with too much bigotry.

    1. Sadly, as First Minister, Salmond IS the one in power.

  47. Dave North 2 Nov 2012, 8:24pm

    Thank goodness I left that bigoted hell hole of a country.

    Salmond in his never ending quest for independence should remember that once he gets it and then sells it into the EU as he desires it will be subject to its secularism.

    1. “If” he gets independence – it’s not a foregone conclusion, not by any means.

      1. he gets? What about those non-SNP supporters who back independence?

        1. Independence is only a possibility because the SNP won a majority. I am well aware other parties support it but without the SNP, a referendum would not be happening.

          I know you think I’m a Labour supporting SNP hater, but I’m not actually dead against independence or even the SNP. I simply think the SNP has to deal with homophobia which it currently turns a blind eye to, such as accepting money from Souter.

  48. Dave North 2 Nov 2012, 8:30pm

    So just what do you call someone who has proven time after time that they are bigoted against gay people.

    I am sick and tired of these cretins hiding behind their stupid bibles they use to batter us with and now we have Salmond supporting it.

    Let this BIGOT say the same about race and the sh!t would be doing time.

    Salmond. Uphold the law. Obrien did Hate Speech.

  49. Doug Pollard 2 Nov 2012, 8:39pm

    Definition of BIGOT

    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

  50. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Nov 2012, 8:57pm

    We should all send Salmond, in fact bombard him with the definition of what a bigot is according to all dictionary references. O’Brien’s words and comments clearly fall within that definition. A bit rich when we tell the truth and call him out as a bigot, but we’re chastised because it happens to be a religious cleric. It’s not as if we’re lying about it, his statements are bigoted. I don’t see why that should be construed as an insult. He wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences if he’d kept his mouth shut, but he chose not to, just as he chooses to be a bigot in doing so. Nobody comes into this world that way. His church taught him to disciminate, hate and spread lies about gay people. That not only makes him a bigot but a hypocrite and a hatemonger.

  51. malcanoid 2 Nov 2012, 9:44pm

    What are they fussing about. O’Brien meets the dictionary definition of bigot, richly deserve the award and should recognise the fact.

  52. Keith Farrell 2 Nov 2012, 9:59pm

    O’Brian needs to make peace with the LGBT people, calling us anything less than human is not right, He has done everything to deserve this award if he is not man enough to apoligise to us then we will just have to be happy with him receiving this award.
    For the first Minister to come out in his defence is also wrong, it means that he values his friend O Brian, more than the people of Scotland. What he needs to do is be the peace maker and get O brian to stop his hate campain against gay people.

  53. “Alex Salmond: Stonewall wrong to call Cardinal O’Brien a ‘bigot’”

    So there’s something else we are supposed to call anti-gay bigots then? What would that be I wonder?

  54. And??? So, that makes it ok then for gays to be linked with paedophilia and beastality then?

    No.. It’s not right for gays to be labelled as such.

    Stop rattling the sabre, get back in the cave. Be quiet.

  55. t’s not a word, it’s an acronym: Biblically-Intoxicated God-Obsessed Transvestite. Similar to Clerically-Uniformed Nonce-Tolerator.

  56. Nick Davis 3 Nov 2012, 12:31am

    Well I’m nearly speechless. For fifty years I have had to put up with these people; advocating my murder, suggesting putting me in a compound, wanting to castrate me, attacking me in the street, telling me I am an abomination, trying to restrict my civil rights, passing judgement with moral impunity and not least being hypocritical.
    Now they howl at being called bigots.

  57. Calling Cardinal O’Brien “a bigot” is not pejorative, it’s the correct description of someone who holds bigoted views. O’Brien’s views are homophobic and bigoted. He IS a bigot.

  58. tomchicago01 3 Nov 2012, 2:10am

    the term bigot is actually quite plain (and relatively mild) in the Merriam-Webster definition:
    ” a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” I think it clearly applies.

  59. To be honest guys you have to feel sorry for Cardinal bigot. Our frocks are far better than his :D

  60. A bigot is someone who is intolerant of those who hold views different from his/her own. O’Brien wants people to have available only his version of marriage, and denigrates those who disagree with him. I think it not unreasonable to define this man as a bigot.

  61. Apologies to tomchicago01: I must admit I had not noticed your comment before I posted. Although my definition was a paraphrased Oxford Dictionary version, it is clearly in agreement with your own, and just as clearly it applies to O”Brien.

    1. tomchicago01 3 Nov 2012, 9:32am

      no apology needed. great minds thinking alike?

  62. Robert Brown 3 Nov 2012, 7:18am

    Mr Alex Salmond MSP, as leader of his party, should get his own house in order before he starts to talk . . .

    What with the ex-head of the SNP saying equality is not a right for each citizen, and many MSPs (both SNP, Labour and Conservative) not wanting full equality for the LGBT community, one wonders what sort of constitution Scotland ‘may’ have ‘if’ she wins Independence.

    http://www.rainbow-citizen.com

  63. “Stonewall wrong to call Cardinal O’Brien a ‘bigot’”

    How about just calling him a Gobshyte then?

    1. Carl Rowlands 3 Nov 2012, 2:52pm

      Chuckle!

  64. His Eminence merely advances the argument placed upon him by His Holiness The Pope- he has never advocated killing LGBT people-= yet he is the bogot of the tear? It makes no sense. STONEWALL stands in danger of being branded as unrepresentative and merely the face of anti-Christian atheism. Wouldn’t it be better to engage in reasoned debate with the Church in public on a scriptural level? Many mullahs of Islam advocate death for LGBT citizens- yet STONEWALL fears to take them on. Insulting leaders of significant peaceful LGBT populations is NOT the way to achieve anything.

    1. ” Wouldn’t it be better to engage in reasoned debate with the Church on a scriptural level”

      There is no description of homosexuality per se nor homosexuals per se in scripture.
      If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people.

      1. -faeces on penis = HPV , HIV, death 3 Nov 2012, 11:12am

        There a numerous condemnations of homosexuality in scipture. That aside, there is no description of s.cat in scripture or paedophilia. Does that mean that these things are acceptable?

      2. You’re right, Pavlos.

        A reasoned argument between educated christians and the dualistic philosophies would be appropriate.

        It cannot be ignored that the original evangelists – at least those whose writings received the support of the budding church – did not put such bigotry in the mouth of Jesus.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Nov 2012, 11:48am

      You are delusional. There is NO such thing as reasoned debate when bigots, yes bigots like O’Brien call same-sex civil marriage “grotesque” and denigrates our relationships. Civil marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with the roman cult since it doesn’t even participate in such unions and doesn’t even believe in divorce, one of the reasons civil marriage was introduced. Suggesting that equal marriage can lead to bestiality, polygamy and incest is yet another example of the bigotry coming from religious people. So in your “brilliant” deduction, uttering racial slurs against an ethnic group wouldn’t be construed as “racist”, but is merely an expression of one’s beliefs? Look up the meaning of the word bigot in any dictionary and you’ll clearly see that what Stonewall said was absolutely correct. Bigot isn’t an insult, it’s a factual description of the people, usually religious extremists, who fit such a description.

    3. ” yet he is the bogot of the tear? It makes no sense. ”

      You should probably read more newspapers, its no surprise you can’t get it, bigots rarely educate themselves.

  65. Calling O’Brien a bigot is not a personal insult, it’s stating a fact.

    Alex Salmond should grow a pair.

  66. A, J,Mainland 3 Nov 2012, 12:33pm

    May I remind CJ, the leader of the church in Britain is her majesty the Queen. In her adress to the Synod she made it perfectly clear that people of faith and people of no faith must learn to get along with one another and nobody has a monopoly over one another. Here you are perpetrating the myth that all athiests are horrible hate mongering monsters, what about
    Clare Raynar. There is human decency within us all, just because some people try to point out the odeous behaviour of the Catholic
    hierarchy, doesn’t make them all
    Christian haters. When there is a Bully in the playground of life, it is wise to try and underline their actions before they stirr to many into a frenzy
    of fear, which can effect everyone.

    1. George Broadhead 3 Nov 2012, 6:21pm

      You shuold join a Humanist organisation one of which the late Claire Rayner was a staunch supporter

  67. And just in case any Scot’s gay person was considering Independence for Scotland, just think of what it will mean. Alex Salmond on one side, Brian Souter on the other and Cardinal Keith O’Brien slap bang grinning in the middle. If that doesn’t scare the hell out of any gay person living in Scotland I don’t know what will.

  68. I don’t think bigot is a strong enough word.

    1. Dave North 4 Nov 2012, 4:27pm

      Vicious, evil , unchristian w@nk stain.

      That about covers it.

  69. Carl Rowlands 3 Nov 2012, 1:41pm

    I don’t remember Alex Salmond publicly rebuking the Cardinal over his comments about us. He didn’t question his motives then or say he was wrong to call us! If there is one thing I hate over prejudice is the concept of conditional acceptance. You know where you stand with good old fashioned prejudice but acceptance with conditions is not quantifiable!

  70. I read a comment somewhere that described his church as a corrupted form of the Christian religion. I thought that a very good description. It does not surprise me that he says what he does, but the great nation of Scotland and its leaders do not need to support the bigoted garbage that some like him rant.
    LGBT people are an integral part of Scotland who contribute as much as anyone to this country . Independence could be on the horizon. Are we going to pander to bigots or become a nation that is equal and fair. A good place to live or a nation built on crap

  71. I think the whole thing is silly. OK, I’m not exactly cock-a-hoop about gay marriage-in the sense that I am neutral, but at the same time, what skin is it off my nose if gay people get married? None at all. It may make some people happy and will bring no harm to anybody.
    Nobody will force Catholic priests to marry; they should mind their own beeswax.

  72. JosephChrist 3 Nov 2012, 6:34pm

    Check out afer.org “marriage new watch” slams people like O’Brien.

  73. If he’s not a bigot, well, what is he?

  74. This is by no means out of character for Slippery Salmond. The man who once appeared to take a principled opposition to the illegal NATO bombing of Serbia, only to u-turn and agree to join NATO in the even of a ‘Yes’ vote for independence.

    ll of it strangely correlated with his increasingly cosy friendship with the Murdochs. This was also the man who stood virtually alone calling out Blair for consciously deceiving the public in preparing for the war on Iraq. Strange he would befriend the man KNOWN to have peddled the lies of the September Dossier with infamous Sun headline “45 Minutes from Doom”.

    Lets just say Salmond’s convictions are, umm, flexible where lobbyists are concerned. And who just happens to be waging a cynical, money-driven campaign right now against gay marriage in Scotland? The Catholic Church.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Nov 2012, 2:28pm

      Amazing that a minority cult in Scotland and England for that matter seems to wield such power and influence isn’t it? What a pity the catholic emancipation act were ever passed. It should never have been allowed to set up business again after Henry VIII banished it as the state cult.

  75. It’s not just Salmond either. Both regular Guardian columnist Andrew Brown and NS commentator Nelson Jones have defended Keith O’Brien’s indefensible behaviour. The liberal establishment cannot be trusted to stand up for pretty elementary decency.

  76. Robert Brown 3 Nov 2012, 11:08pm

    This from a man who accepted £500,000 from one of the biggest homophobes in the world to fund his election campaign and who has many MSPs and Cllrs unwilling to vote for equality . . . and equal marriage . . .

    SHAMEFUL on you Mr Salmond.

      1. The SNP have accepted more than 1 million pounds in total from Brian Souter since 2007. Whenever he donates money to the SNP something favourable tends to befall him such as the SNP dropping their longstanding bus re-regulation policy despite the party membership voting to retain it just a few months earlier, or Souter receiving a Knighthood. Not that I’m suggesting for a second that his large donations to SNP funds were in any way connected to his good fortune!!!

        1. and you’re right, they weren’t

          1. And if you believe that for a second then you’re either extremely naive or a blinkered SNP supporter who will defend them no matter what. I used to be like that until they took Souter’s money in 2007. I couldn’t support them in good conscience after that.

          2. At the SNP autumn conference in 2006, the party membership voted to keep their long-standing policy on bus re-regulation. It had been in their election manifestos in 1999 & 2003. In March 2007, Souter’s donation was announced. In April, the SNP published their manifesto for the election in May and there was no mention of bus re-regulation. The SNP have never given a reason why it was dropped immediately after Souter gave them half a million quid when the party had voted to keep it only a few months earlier.

  77. Mickie Newton 3 Nov 2012, 11:36pm

    These bigots try to shame us all the bloody time! So frankly I couldn’t careless how those like Salmond feel about it us referring to such people as Cardinal O’Brien as bigots. If it makes him feel uncomfortable then brilliant!

    1. To be honest, Mickie, it does bother me that Alex Salmond is sticking up for a homophobe like O’Brien. Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland whose government is currently handling a very important piece of equality legislation. It’s vital that we know he is fully commited to LGBT equality and this makes me think he isn’t.

  78. CURRENT BBC Sunday Morning Live Poll -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0126f45

    Live debate with Kate Silverton. Is Stonewall’s ‘bigot of the year’ award inappropriate?

    1. Debate will include Andrew Pierce from the Daily Mail – who will almost certainly side with LGBT opponents and argue that the ‘Bigot of the Year’ award was inappropriate. Bet Stonewall loses the vote.

      1. What vote?

      2. Wierdly Andrew Pierce was the panel member most in favour of calling Keith O’Brien a bigot – it surprised me too!
        A few contributers attempted to conflate calling Keith O’Brian a bigot with ‘shutting down his free speech’, but Andrew Pierce actually challenged that.
        The general gist of the debate was that Keith O’Brian has a free speech right to say bigoted stuff about gay people and we have the right to challenge him because of it. Whether or not calling him a bigot gets us anywhere was more of a moot point.

  79. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Nov 2012, 4:52pm

    Amazing isn’t it? Here we have the roman cult playing the victim card, yet it gets away with vile, disgusting references denigrating our relationships with no factual let alone empirical evidence to substantiate their nonsense (it’s called lying) and they expect no retaliation? Why is it religion gets carte blanche to hurl their own insults towards us and are defended by this idiot Salmon who doesn’t or refuses to understand what the term “bigot” really means? People like that have the nerve to ask for reasoned debate when their spreading lies and fomenting hatred towards us by their negative comments about our relationships? I think not. Bigot is entirely appropriate. Salmon needs to be taught a lesson on its usage.

  80. Jesus had two daddies

    1. Sodom's judgement 5 Nov 2012, 5:13pm

      He had a mother.

  81. Alex Salmond, you are backing the wrong horse. O’Brian will betray you as quickly as he has betrayed the LGBT Community. You are judged by the company you keep. Be careful that you are not tarred with the same brush as O’Brian because he is on his way out, and so will you be. You should back winners not losers and betrayers.

  82. Robert Brown 4 Nov 2012, 11:27pm

    To slightly adjust the words of Stonewall . . .

    “Some People are Catholic, get over it”

    As an SGI Nichiren Buddhist, I don’t agree with the Cardinal’s words, however I also don’t agree with Stonewall’s Bigot of the Year Award . . .

    Which one is worse?

    Do we really want to lower ourselves and go down that route? . . .

    Robert
    http://www.rainbow-citizen.com

    1. Although it is hard to quantify which is worse, neither of them are particularly acceptable. Personally, I think Stonewall should have known better though. And nice paraphrasing btw :)

    2. “Some people who are bigots get called bigots, get over it”

    3. We call a racist a racist don’t we. This is no different!

  83. James Rall 3 Dec 2012, 12:25pm

    Salmond passexd the Laws for Racial remarks at football grounds. Is the man a total idiot, for letting the Catholic Church to broadcast homophobia remarks in public. This guy seems to wear two faces permanantly in public. He charges us for football chants, but let someone else off with homophobia.

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