The B word

Certain words trip off the tongue of those on the left of the political spectrum, they're mostly used to try and shut down debate by accusing those who oppose the proposals or cause as something beyond the pale. That it backfires is no surprise, just ask Gillian Duffy or indeed Gordon Brown...
So it really should not have come as a surprise to Nicky (boy) Clegg that using derogatory terms to try and suppress or attack the opponents of one of his pet causes should backfire...
BBC.

Nick Clegg has become embroiled in a row over gay marriage after aides had to remove comments in the draft version of a speech calling opponents "bigots".
The deputy PM was expected to launch an attack on those against the policy - which include some Tory MPs - in a speech at a reception in London.
But the wording of initial extracts released to the media was changed.
Mr Clegg later insisted he never intended to use such language as it was "not the kind of word" he would use.
Sources close to Mr Clegg said the "bigot" claim was "a mistake" in an early draft of the speech which should not have been released to the press.
But Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said the remarks were "very offensive".
"If he persists in taking that view I and others would be very offended, he said.
"To be called a bigot is a very offensive statement and I would ask him to recall it...because there are issues here that demand very serious debate."

I'm not sure who first said it, but it's a truism that if you have to resort to insult, then you've lost the debate, Clegg's claims that it was just a draft may indeed be true, however knowing how the mindset of those on the left work (and Clegg is indeed a lefty) the term bigot was probably thought to be a suitable term for those who oppose 'gay marriage' whether they were bigoted or not.
The church has deep seated religious reasons for being opposed to gay marriage, they regard the term 'marriage' as being the union between a man and a woman to bring children into the world and believe it to be the way approved of by God. At the moment, civil partnerships provide exactly the same rights in a same sex relationship, so why the insistence on being allowed to call it a marriage is a little beyond me, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then all semantics aside, it is a duck!
If however this is just some sort of way to try and force churches to marry people of the same sex to each other in the sight of God then sorry, no, you don't get to do this without a change in the rule book, and good luck with that one. It's certainly not the privilege of politicians to dictate to the church, not now, not then, not ever.
That's not to say there aren't bigots involved in the debate, it's just that they are likely to be on both sides of the debate, however as the boy Clegg has just found out, using the B word first automatically loses you a battle in the war. Personally I don't hold with Clegg's excuse that this was a draft copy, I simply think he didn't know better and was shocked when the controversy came right back to his door.
But sadly that's the left for you these days...