Lynne Featherstone: Modesty Forbids

Read all about it!

Lynne Featherstone: Featherbrain

The Daily Mail's inhouse Aunty Tom, Andrew Pierce - famously A Gay Against Gay Marriage.

This assertion is (sort of) correct.

Gay Marriage: Wha'ppen?

Opponents of gay marriage were privately branded ‘Neanderthals’ by David Cameron, his biographer has revealed.

The Prime Minister defied opposition from his own advisers and hostility from the party to push through same sex marriage in 2013.

In ‘Cameron at 10’, Sir Anthony Seldon described the atmosphere at the 2011 Tory conference when Mr Cameron made the surprise announcement that he was consulting on legalising same sex marriage: ‘A bomb detonates in the party’, the academic wrote.

Few issues were as divisive in the party, Mr Seldon wrote, with some seeing it as ‘authentic Cameron’ pursuing his ideals while others thought it was a ‘self-inflicted wound’.

He had toyed with including it in the 2010 Tory manifesto but was over-ruled by his press adviser, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor who was later jailed over the hacking scandal.

His advisers repeatedly told him: ‘what’s the point if it’s going to p*** off a lot of people and not win us any votes?’

But Mr Cameron said: ‘Unless you are making some Neanderthal judgement on gays, those who are gay should have the same rights as those who are not.’

Although he personally supported the policy, his election guru Lynton Crosby warned it could be a distraction. ‘You’re f***ing off the party big time.’ ...

Daily Mail.

Actually what happened was Cameron had to withdraw a chunk of his 2011 Conservative party speech as it was leaked and thought 'hideously patronising'.

In a panic, his newly anointed speechwriter, Julian Glover (Matthew Parris's boyfriend btw) told him to say something about gay marriage, to undercut his Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone backing same-sex marriage at the Lib Dems conference.

And that, boys and girls, is how you got gay marriage, basically.

It was completely cynical.

Gay Rights: Tying The Knot?

The first same-sex weddings in England and Wales take place on 29th March - yet marriage was the last thing on the minds of pioneering gay rights crusaders in the 60s and 70s. Reverend Richard Coles looks at how gay marriage became the defining issue of recent years - and asks whether it represents the last crusade of the campaign for gay rights.

He speaks to senior Stonewall figures Ben Summerskill, Michael Cashman and Angela Mason. He also hears from Peter Tatchell, the Conservative Party's first openly gay MP Alan Duncan and former Prime Minister Tony Blair who introduced Civil Partnerships.

Richard discovers that for many early activists, marriage was not only a far off prospect, it wasn't a very desirable one either, as many gay men and women sought the downfall of traditional institutions.

So where along the line did the idea of gay marriage become the number one campaigning issue? And with this last major legislative milestone passed, is it time for gay rights campaigners to pack up and go home?

BBC Radio 4 blurb.*

The radio programme everybody's been talking about, though no-one has heard was finally broadcast tonight.

And despite all the heat generated by Ben Summerskill calling the Lib Dems' support for gay marriage 'cynical and  opportunistic' - and those sodding cake toppers above - it was about far more than marriage equality, but was more a little history of how the fabled 'gay agenda' has changed over the last few decades.

Fagburn thought it was doubleplusgood.

Pink News ran its ninth story about Summerskillgate today - though this was an open letter by Lynne Featherstone so was quite relevant. 

And Peter Tatchell took to HuffPostGay in Up Against The Stonewall to accuse Ben Summerskill of possible 'party point-scoring' due to his closeness to the Labour party.

A fair point (score). 

* Also an iPlayer link.

Gay Marriage: 'Cynical And Opportunistic'

The Liberal Democrats have been accused of acting in a "cynical and opportunistic" way when they decided to back gay marriage shortly after coming to power in May 2010.

Ben Summerskill, who stepped down last month as chief executive of Stonewall after running the gay rights charity for 11 years, said it was politically expedient for the Lib Dems to back a policy that put a distance between themselves and the Conservative party at a time when there was enormous disquiet about the two parties forming a coalition.

He told the Observer that he stood by his remarks, made for a Radio 4 programme, and had been convinced of the Lib Dems' cynicism when former MP Evan Harris greeted the conference vote to adopt gay marriage by saying: "This is great because we put clear blue water between us and the Tories."

"Note that he didn't say, 'hurrah – this is great news for gay couples or for equality'," said Summerskill. "He made it crystal clear that at that time it was politically opportunistic for the Lib Dems. It is certainly a less edifying view of the politicians involved, but it's a true view. All you have to do is look at the Lib Dem manifesto in May 2010, even their gay manifesto, and gay marriage doesn't appear. Suddenly, three months later, there they were quite cynically adopting the policy."

His remarks have angered Lib Dem equality minister Lynne Featherstone. "Wow, I'm really upset by that, really upset," she said. "That's absolute rubbish. We are the party of equality and Ben knows that. It wasn't in the manifesto probably because no one thought it could be achieved – not because of any lack of desire to do it.

"I wasn't going to raise this, but it has to be said that Stonewall wasn't in favour of equal marriage and they changed – and I'm very grateful they changed. It is somewhat upsetting to hear that that is his attitude. I thought we were all working together on this. I'm very surprised and disappointed to hear him say that. It's completely unnecessary." ...

The Observer.

Well, this has gone down well. 

Tee-hee. 

Stonewall and Summerskill's glacial slowness on coming out for equal marriage was farcical and tragic to say the least.

But the race for both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives to suddenly announce and to take credit for same-sex marriage legislation during their 2011 conferences suggest both had another agenda, and we were being used as a pink political football.

Why did both parties suddenly, simultaneously pull the policy out of a magician's top hat?

This is a facinating episode I shall return to in more detail later...

PS Here's more about next Tuesday's Radio 4 programme, Gay Rights: Tying The Knot.

PPS Fagburn wonders how many stories Pink News will wring out of this 'outrage'?

Marriage: Hello, Cock Meet Up

The Sun.

The look on Lynne Featherstone's face says it all...

Here's the small print;

:: No religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises;

:: It will be unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation’s governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so;

:: The Equality Act 2010 is to be amended to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple;

:: The legislation will explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply.

 Teh bigots is teh win!

Cabinet Reshuffle: News In Briefs

Lynne Featherstone - It emerged late in the day that Featherstone is leaving her post, Home Office (Equalities) Minister, as Equalities is being moved to the Department for Culture (See Maria Miller below). A good friend to The Gays - unacknowledged architect of getting marriage equality on the agenda. And thus predictably hated by the Daily Mail and the Tory Right.

Chris Grayling - Justice Secretary. Supports hoteliers right to be homophobic. Votes "moderately against gay rights". Irony! Hardline right-winger. Replaces the liberal pro-gay Tory, Ken Clarke, who was attacked by the tabloids for being "soft on crime". Be afraid.

Nick Herbert. Tweeted he was resigning as Policing Minister late this afternoon. It's thought in a queeny flounce at not being promoted.

David Laws - Education Minister. Went to private school, natch. Return of the unconvicted fraudster. Background in business, which shows how the Tories see our schools. Only a slight return - he's an Education Minister, and hasn't returned to Cabinet - notorious heterosexual Michael Gove remains Secretary of State for Education.

Maria Miller - Culture Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities. As Equalities - bafflingly - moves over to her new department, Culture, she takes over the equalities brief from Lynne Featherstone. I'm not sure where all these shenanigans leave Theresa May. According to a tweet earlier from Coalition 4 Equal Marriage, Miller has not told them whether she supports gay marriage. Votes "moderately against gay rights" (Has only been able to vote on two gay bills, but absent for one, against another). Gay marriage looks ever further off now.

Lady Warsi - Minister for Faith And Communities. Homophobe. Irony! Demoted from party "chairman" [sic]. Knows a lot about faith and communities as when standing for election in 2005 published a special leaflet for Muslim areas full of homophobic lies about Labour [sick]. Unelected. Appointment by tokenism.

[This was updated through the day, so ended up a bit garbled - not helped by different uses of the word "Cabinet". Hopefully it makes sense now]

PS In general, Cameron's reshuffle has been seen as a lurch to the right.  Oh crap...

Lynne Featherstone: Crucified

As it's Easter, The Daily Mail decides to wibble on once more about "attempts to ban the wearing of crosses and crucifixes" at work.
Snore!
As it's Easter, the Mail also clears some space so Quentin Letts can try and crucify Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem Equalities Minister.
The whole thing hinges on "her handling of the gay weddings controversy", with a not so subtle subtext.
Never mind the policy, here's the sexism...

"Though aged 60 (and counting), she teeters up to the Despatch Box in high heels, grinning girlishly at the Opposition benches before hesitantly lisping a few opening apologies for losing her place or some such calamity. Think of Ulrika Jonsson corpsing during one of her weather forecasts in the Eighties.
"Quite often Mrs Featherstone giggles, says she did not quite catch the drift of the question or pushes her long fringe out of her smouldering eyes and gives a hapless shrug of her shoulders.
"She invariably pulls at the bottom of her skimpy designer top, the better to accentuate her slinky torso. Shades of a Wonderbra advert — from the Minister for Women!"

Wouldn't it be easier just to come out and call her a "silly old cow"?
Letts proclaims; "Mrs Featherstone is in an intellectual muddle, though she does not seem to know it. Well, there’s a surprise! On gay marriage, the divorced mother of two presents herself as the champion of tolerance. Yet on the wearing of crosses, she is completely the opposite — so intolerant that she is using Government lawyers to fight her corner."
"Even her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party call her ‘Lynne Featherbrain’," Letts claims.
"She has another nickname, ‘Dorian’, because she is so similar to the ageing vamp of that name (played by Lesley Joseph) in the TV sitcom Birds Of A Feather."
"She has been a lifelong fighter of the flab... inveighed against Page 3 girls and all that sort of jazz... said she ‘wouldn’t really have a problem’ with women having cosmetic surgery to give their sagging breasts..."
Oh, and lest we forget, Letts reminds us that "Dorian" is "of Jewish stock."
"But with tame Christians being tormented by the Government machine, there surely comes a time when the Featherstone joke has gone far enough."
A shockingly shameful exercise in misogyny, even by the Mail's gutter-low standards.
Drop dead, Quentin.

Marriage: Of Convenience

One of the oddest sideshows to the gay marriage debate has been the battle for political ownership of the policy.
This first went public during conference season last year.
The Lib Dems' Lynne Featherstone made ever such a big hurrah about it - as if its possible/promised introduction was a key sign of how they were wrestling Lib Dem policies out of their Conservative coalition partners (Though it was not a Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge, either).
Two weeks later David Cameron turned marriage equality into a keynote of his keynote speech.
Thunder duly stolen.
Today both parties have pushed their big pro-gay guns into the press to announce the launch of the same-sex marriage consultation process.
Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister, is interviewed by The Independent where the journalist concentrates on the bunfight with the Christian lobby that the press have obsessed over of late; "the Liberal Democrat minister appealed for a "calm and reasoned debate" and for her critics to stop using "inflammatory" language after she formally launches the Government's consultation exercise today."
Here's the key quote from Featherstone;
"Ms Featherstone made clear that her mind is already made up, giving a "cast-iron guarantee" that civil gay marriage would become law by the next general election in 2015.
"There is no rolling back whatsoever," she said. "The essential question is not whether we are going to introduce same-sex civil marriage but how."
Yes, exactly - how? 
An enabling law?
By magic?
Who can say?
Over in The Times, Theresa May - self-styled "Conservative Home Secretary and Minister for Equalities" note - writes; 'If Marriage Is Good It Should Be For Everyone'.  
(It's behind the Murdoch paywall, but here's a scan).
Just like The Times and David Cameron, May may be a recent convert to the marriage equality cause, but is now bending over forward to show she's a passionate advocate.
May puts a calming, ever so reasonable and very conservative case, summarised as; "Plans to allow gays to wed will strengthen society and pose no threat at all to the Church."
The Independent article directly mentions the battle for ownership of what's become a flagship policy between the two coalition parties;
"Ms Featherstone is more polite about her Tory critics – even though 50 backbenchers may vote against the plans and another 50 could abstain. "I think the Conservative Party has moved on from where it was," she said. "As Liberal Democrats, we like to enlighten people."
"There was a minor skirmish between the two Coalition parties last autumn over whether Mr Cameron or Ms Featherstone was the driving force behind legalising gay marriage. "I am very grateful to David Cameron for his absolute commitment to this proposal," Ms Featherstone said. "It is a liberal idea, as you would expect from a liberal Equalities minister."
Get 'er! etc etc.
How amusing that the gay marriage debate shows how there are so many hidden seething tensions between these superficially civil coalition partners. 
And what a difficult marriage it is.

Ann Widdecombe: She Never Married

You can almost hear Ann Widdecombe's brain creaking into action in her column in The Daily Express.
Today Ms Widdecombe is sharing her quarter-baked thoughts on gay marriage - yes, again.
She argues that Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister, is trying to set up a false dichotomy,  suggesting that the only folk opposed to gay marriage are those of a religious persuasion.
"I know gays who oppose this measure – as does Christopher Biggins – and one can hardly call them homophobic."
Well, thankfully there are plenty of other things one can call Christopher Biggins. 
Undaunted by logic, she goes on; "People who never go inside a church from one year to the next oppose it. Some of those who spoke out in favour of civil partnerships oppose it. Writers on Left-wing newspapers oppose it."
Yes, ok, some do, but for entirely different reasons to you.
And are they opposed to the concept of gay-straight equality, as so clearly are you? 
Time for some insanely over-the-top hyperbole, methinks.
"So as this is the most fundamental change to society in centuries..." - that line is so funny you may enjoy reading it again - "let David Cameron ask the people what they want. If he insists on pushing ahead then I challenge him to hold a referendum."
Apart from the fact we'd win, there's a slight flaw in your plan, Ann.
One of the main points of parliamentary democracy is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
And to protect the rights of people like me from nasty old bigots like you.

Marriage: The Queen's Speech

"This Government is promoting a fair society where people respect each other.
"I believe that if a couple love each other and want to commit to a life together, they should have the option of a civil marriage, irrespective of whether they are gay or straight. We are not changing religious marriage, or requiring religious groups to go against their traditions."

Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister and Lib Dem MP, speaking to The Independent.
The paper speculates; "There will now be a furious battle ahead of this spring's Queen's Speech, in which proposals could be announced, with the aim of the first gay weddings taking place by 2015 at the latest."
I wouldn't hold your breath - though it would be fun to see if the Queen mentions gay marriage in her speech.
Featherstone has also written a piece for the Daily Telegraph (who are rather obsessed with this issue); 'This is not gay rights versus religious beliefs'.
"Who owns marriage? It’s an interesting question and a pressing one in the debate around equal civil marriage. It is owned by neither the state nor the church, as the former Archbishop Lord Carey rightly said. So it is owned by the people.
"The fierce debate over the past few weeks has shown people feel very strongly about marriage. Some believe the Government has no right to change it at all; they want to leave tradition alone. I want to challenge that view – it is the Government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future, not stay silent where it has the power to act and change things for the better..."
NB She mentions no possible timescale.
The Independent also - for reasons best known to themselves - quote Julian Clary; "Lord Carey's comments [opposing gay marriage] are very predictable. All these comments seems to come out of fear. In 10 years, when gay marriage is normal, we'll have forgotten all about this. He should have one of his pills and shut up."
There's a nutty piece by Amanda Patell in the Mail (natch) today on how Lord Carey and the Archbishop of York have been 'Vilified for daring to fight for marriage'.
And she actually points out that some of here best friends are "gays".
"I fear that Mr Cameron’s position is just another typically cynical exercise to try to rebrand the Tory Party.
"He is not driven by belief, but simply by an opportunistic attempt to spin himself as a modern, liberal kind of guy..."
At least she got that bit right - well, Platell did used to be a Tory spin doctor.

PS With its usual duplicity today's Mail also includes a glowing interview with Julian Clary where he talks about having thought about entering a civil partnership.
"Claridge’s would be an ideal setting. But we may change our minds. Sometimes when I think of a reception and speeches and referring to my husband, I don’t think I can face it."

Same-Sex Marriage: Another Premature Ejaculation

"The Government is to legislate for same-sex marriages before the next general election.
"A public consultation on how to make civil marriage available to same-sex couples is to be launched in March of next year.
"The timing means that any necessary legislative changes can be on the Statute Book before the next election, scheduled for May 2015.
"The move was announced by Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone, who is addressing the opening day of her party's annual conference in Birmingham on Saturday.
"'I am delighted to confirm that early next year, this Government will begin a formal consultation on equal civil marriage for same-sex couples," she said. 'This would allow us to make any legislative changes before the end of this Parliament.'
"We will be working closely with all those who have an interest in the area to understand their views ahead of the formal consultation."
"The Lib Dems had been keen to claim credit for the move, which has the strong support of party activists.
"However, senior Tories made clear it had been pushed through with the strong backing of David Cameron - despite the likely opposition of many Conservative traditionalists.
"A No 10 source hinted that the Prime Minister had also had to overcome opposition within the Government to ensure it went through.
"'It is something that was in our equalities manifesto at the election and it is something the PM has been pushing for," the source said."

Press Association released this just after midnight - appears in much the same form in several papers early Saturday.
Nothing so far on the Home Office - or Liberal Democrat - website.
We'd already been told there was going to be a consultation; Theresa May said this at a Stonewall conference in May - so this is hardly big news.
Beyond a slightly less vague promise of a timetable.
And for consultation - not legislation, never mind that legislation being voted through parliament.
Still nice to see it looks like the Tories and Lib Dems are battling it out to take credit for this non-announcement.
If Lynne Featherstone is announcing it today, then why were various Tory sources Tweeting about it - and pushing the angle about how David Cameron had pushed for it - on Friday?
I just hope the government sticks to its principles and only allows gay men to marry if they haven't had gay sex for twelve months.
More in the morning...

Update: Draft response from Stonewall.

Update 2: Listening to Featherstone on Radio 4 News it so looks like reheating this old news was just a sop to the Lib Dem leadership so they don't look like TOTAL sell-outs; "Do not let us go naked into the conference chamber..."

Update 3: Here's Featherstone's insipid inspirational conference speech in full.

Gay Marriage: Waiting At The Church

At the risk of Fagburn repeating himself...
So far, this is all the Home Office are on record as saying about the possibility of gay marriage being introduced in the UK;
"The Government is currently considering what the next stage should be for civil partnerships, including how some religious organisations can allow same-sex couples to register their relationship in a religious setting if they wish to do so.
"Ministers have met a range of people and organisations to hear their views on this issue. An announcement will be made in due course."
That announcement is expected this week or next.
However, like yesterday's Sunday Times - who may know something we don't - some have already decided to break out the champagne.
And all on the back of one single quote in The Sunday Times from an anonymous Whitehall source.
Here's that quote again in full;
“This is not just about gay rights but about religious freedom. Quakers and liberal Judaism want to do this. Attitudes have changed to gay marriage. We are going to look at what legislative steps we could begin to make gay marriage possible.”
Fagburn wonders if this quote just shows a more general semantic confusion over this issue; using "marriage" in an informal sense when you technically mean "civil partnerships" - as did many papers yesterday and today.
Was the Whitehall source talking about making registering civil partnerships in churches possible?
It's quite possible - that is what the first two sentences in the quote clearly refer to, sometimes in inverted commas, sometimes not.
Whatever, a leader in today's Independent was already celebrating; A welcome blow against discrimination
"Less than 50 years ago, homosexuality was illegal in Britain. The last half-century has seen a revolution in social attitudes since a pioneering Labour home secretary, Roy Jenkins, pushed through the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the Sexual Offences Act in 1967. This week, the Coalition's equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, is expected to knock away another pillar in the ancient and unlovely edifice of institutionalised prejudice by announcing legal changes enabling gay men and lesbians to marry."
But have they though?
The Independent notes;
"Much attention around the expected change to the law will concentrate on whether the churches will now have to allow gay marriages to take place in their places of worship. Certainly, it will be interesting to see how the Church of England, which remains bitterly divided over the ordination of gay priests, responds."
This is interesting - and it could prove instructive.
That allowing civil partnerships or gay marriages in places of worship is the controversial issue now - not that of allowing gay marriages.
On BBC TV's The One Show yesterday, Andrew Marr asked Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop Of York, for his thoughts.
"...I, who believes in a liberal democracy and actually want equality with everybody, cannot say the Quakers shouldn't do it. Nor do I want somebody to tell me but the Church of England must do it, but the Roman Catholic Church must do it because actually that's not what equality is about. You mustn't have rights that trump other rights." [Transcript]
Like other papers today, The Daily Telegraph picked up on this; Sentamu: Don't force churches to conduct gay weddings "Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York and the second most powerful cleric in the Church of England, has warned against forcing vicars to conduct same-sex civil partnerships as the Coalition prepares to grant full marriage rights to homosexual couples."
We're still none the wiser what this really means - allowing partnership ceremonies to be conducted in religious buildings is the last real "right" straight couples have that's denied to same-sex couples.
It would make civil partnership equivalent to marriage, but allowing gay couples to marry is another thing entirely.
The Daily Telegraph later clarifies;
"As The Daily Telegraph reported in December, the Coalition is also considering extending homosexual rights to allow full “marriage” for same-sex couples." [Emphasis added]
Let's step back in time and look at that then.
Coalition ministers consider gay marriage plans Daily Telegraph, December 24th 2010.
"Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, is expected to announce that same-sex civil partnership ceremonies will be allowed in churches and other religious settings for the first time.
"The move, likely to come early next year, could be a prelude to overhauling the law on marriage itself, which currently applies only to the union of a man and a woman."
And if you still need clarrification, later in the same article this is spelt out again;
"A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said the coalition had no “plans” to change marriage law but a Government source said potential reforms were “being discussed”."
I hate to say this, but that's what Fagburn was arguing yesterday.
There's no evidence of "plans" for gay marriage, only that it will be discussed - and the Tories have been saying as much for months.
I'd be more than happy if they proved me wrong on this one, though.