At the inaugural Attitude Awards, former Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister and current Minister for International Development, Lynne Featherstone received the Politician of the Year Award for her work to secure equal marriage for same-sex couples.
From the Attitude website:
As much of the debate over the issue has descended into hysterical farce, we salute Lynne Featherstone for her clear and concise defence of the reforms. The minister has refused to be sidetracked, stating in March: ‘The essential question is not whether we are going to introduce same-sex civil marriage, but how.’
At a time when faith in the government (and politicians in general) is at such a low ebb, Lynne Featherstone’s unwavering support for equality is rightly a cause for celebration. Congratulations Lynne, you’re our politician of the year!
Commenting on her award, Lynne Featherstone said:
I am absolutely delighted to receive this award for Politician of the Year. The Government have committed to legislate on equal marriage by 2015, and I look forward to seeing it happen.
I want to thank Attitude so much for the award, and wish them all the best with their great work in the future!
Accepting the award on her behalf last night, Liberal Democrat MP for St Austell and Newquay, Stephen Gilbert said:
One of the leading women in Government, Lynne pushed passionately for the cause of equal marriage against a backdrop of religious condemnation and right-wing revulsion.
She argued succinctly and with a good deal of common sense that marriage was owned by the people, not by the Church, and that equal marriage was the right and fair thing to do no matter what the naysayers might say.
She has stood her ground time and again on the side of equality. She was clear that the Government’s consultation was not about whether to bring it in – but how to bring it in.
In a time of austerity, when some have argued that the focus should solely be on the economy, she was one of the sane voices pointing out that a government can multi-task.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
By 1954 not even Dickie Attenborough was safe on a bombsite
Tories in disarray as Badenoch wings it on pensions
Can you help Barnardo's?
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Peter Davies
Craig Levene
Nick Baird
David Evans
Anthony Acton
18 Comments
“The Government have committed to legislate on equal marriage by 2015.”
No they haven’t. The major partner in the government is committed only to a free vote. “The government” cannot and will not legislate for this by 2015 on its own.
I wonder whether Lynne would care to sign an anti-Attitude petition like the Anti-Page 3 one?
http://attitude.co.uk/men/
… or perhaps recommend that Attitude be put in charge of a new Page 4?
@ Richard Dean
1) Attitude is not a general circulation newspaper in the same way as The Sun is. Those reading it are deliberately going in search of a niche, gay lifestyle interest publication, not picking up a general interest newspaper.
2) The power relationships regarding men and nudity are not the same as those affecting women. Men are not (so far at least) generally objectified and forced to define themselves in relation to their bodies and what they look like. Society gives them plenty of ways of living life without judging them solely on physical attributes.
3) Setting up a petition against a gay magazine risks being misunderstood as regards its motivation.
Talk about being inconsistent!
Good when women can criticise men for it, bad when men can criticise women for it!
Is this argument really just the traditional man-woman banter?
See also https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-cleggs-cockup-over-page-3-he-should-sign-the-no-more-page-three-petition-now-30793.html#comment-224920
1) Sun readers don’t deliberately go in search of the Sun each morning?
2) This Attiitude magazine is somehow immune from power relationships?
3) A publication should be considered immune from criticism if and because it supports gays?
“Attitude is not a general circulation newspaper in the same way as The Sun is.”
The Sun is a general circulation newspaper with a large picture of a topless woman on its third page. This latter fact is rather difficult for any purchaser of The Sun not to notice.
Whilst Richard may have a slight point regarding double standards it was the fact that his link reminded me just how much of a diet I need to go on that I found most disturbing…
Thankfully Mrs Way is happy to work with a mono ab rather than the washboards on display !!
On a serious point the Sun used to feature 16 year old girls back when I was a paper boy and whilst the ages may have got older it really does belong to be consigned to history in the 21st century. Magazines such as attitude are clear in their target audience. The Sun is a daily newspaper available for youngsters to buy, and I’m sure could survive without the need for page three…
My point is not slight at all. It is big. Well, obviously not as big as some, not huge, but substantial nevertheless. And well rooted in sound argument. It is what the PM and DPM might call an “important” point.
@Richard
I think the difference is that the publications are two very differing types. Remember it is not a ban that is being asked for but a voluntary acceptance that the type of image seen on page 3 belongs in a publication other than a daily paper.
I get it! You want to ban news! It’s ok for a publication to publish naked women, or naked men, just as long as there isn’t any news in some other page of the publication?
Actually I think the Sun might satisfy that criterion.
… and I suppose Attitude does too!
If you tried to read my comments rather than putting your own interpretation on them you would see I do not want to ban anything…
“Remember it is not a ban that is being asked for ”
The difference between a newspaper and the type of magazine more suitable to adults would be an easy voluntary step.
Richard Dean either deliberately misrepresents the case or doesn’t seem to understand. Mens magazines are not the issue – gay or straight. A family newspaper is a different matter. LibDem policy is about the equivalent of the 9pm watershed on TV – ie placement of material you may not be able to avoid seeing if you don’t choose to. Moreover – the actual No to Page 3 campaign is not about banning anyway!
Thanks Lynne, for your efforts, in the face of pretty unjustified mockery, personal abuse etc. Page 3 belongs to another era, a time when Benny Hill, Miss World etc used to be prime-time viewing and when women used to be considered fair game for groping in the workplace, even the BBC. . It really has no place in 2012.
Rubbish, Lynne. People can avoid seeing Page 3 by not buying the Sun. Page 3 is not on Page 1. The mechanics of buying it generally involve going out of the house, and very often the buyer goes straight to work taking the paper along. The buyer then has the choice of whether to bring it home to the family setting or not.
Several threads ago, I asked whether there was any evidence for any of the good, bad, or indifferent effects claimed for Page 3. No-one has produced any evidence at all. Is this government committed to policy based on prejudice, or policy supported by evidence?
“Richard Dean 19th Oct ’12 – 12:30am
I get it! You want to ban news! It’s ok for a publication to publish naked women, or naked men, just as long as there isn’t any news in some other page of the publication?
Actually I think the Sun might satisfy that criterion.”
Well put!
“Page 3 belongs to another era, a time when Benny Hill, Miss World etc used to be prime-time viewing and when women used to be considered fair game for groping in the workplace, even the BBC. . It really has no place in 2012.”
Please try to resist the temptation to ask the TV companies to stop showing the Carry On films …
“Page 3 belongs to another era, a time when Benny Hill, Miss World etc used to be prime-time viewing.”
Miss World is still prime-time viewing – albeit on the digital backwater that is Channel E! (their punctuation) My kids saw a bit of it the other week and seemed to enjoy it, much as I and my sisters used to enjoy it when we were kids. No warped attitudes towards women detected yet but I’ll keep an eye out.
Attitude magazine may well be marketed at a more adult audience than The Sun (mind you, how many children buy newspapers?), but everyone seems to be missing the ponit that the pictures Richard refers to are freely available on the mag’s website, with no age suitability warnings of any kind. Any child with an internet connection will find these pictures more easily obtainable than The Sun – no need to go to a newsagent and exchange money for it.
Lynne: “A family newspaper is a different matter.”
I would suggest that The Sun is bought by families who genuinely don’t think there is anything evil or corrupting about the sight of a woman’s breasts. Good for them (though I don’t buy it myself).