I was sort of wondering how you can be gay and a Conservative supporter at the same time.
I mean, not only do they deny your very existence - they think cabinet ministers should be punished for appearing in any way supportive of you, or those like you.
It's your life and all that, but I was just wondering how you sleep at night.
As I've indicated before, if the Harper Cons don't want you, we do.
Kinsella's concern arises from this news from the website of the Campaign Life Coalition, which states:
SASKATOON, July 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The revelation of $400,000 in funding from the federal Conservatives for the recent Toronto Gay Pride parade, which is notorious for its inclusion of full frontal nudity and public sex acts by homosexuals, came as a shock to most social conservatives in the nation. According to Conservative MP Brad Trost, however, the decision to fund the event also came a shock to most of the Conservative caucus, even those inside the Prime Minister's office.
Speaking to LifeSiteNews.com from his riding office in Saskatoon today, the 36-year-old Conservative said, "The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by - I think it's safe to say by a large majority - of the MPs. This was a very isolated decision."
Trost also hinted that Minister Diane Ablonczy, who was responsible for the funding, lost the file as a consequence of the embarrassment to the Party. Protesting more than once that there was no "official connection," he said, however, "it should be noted that the file has been reassigned to a different Cabinet Minister since that announcement was made." He added, "The whole tourism program and funding for major tourism events is being reviewed."
Trost claimed that "almost the entire Conservative caucus" including "most of the Prime Minister's Office were taken by surprise at this announcement."
"It shouldn't be deemed to have been a change in Party policy," he said, adding, "Most of the caucus is still strongly pro-traditional marriage."
The MP attributed the move to "sloppiness."
"Canadian taxpayers, even non-social-conservative ones, don't want their tax dollars to go to events that are polarizing or events that are more political than touristic in nature," he said.
"I'm glad they're owning up to a very grave error here," said Mary Ellen Douglas, national coordinator for Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), in response to Trost's remarks. CLC had originally protested the decision to fund Gay Pride as soon as it was made public. At the time, CLC's Jeff Gunnarson had told LSN, "Given the fact that the Conservative government supports marriage as a union of one man and one woman in Section 68 iii of their Policy Declaration, I am concerned that they find it prudent to give nearly half a million dollars to a group that diametrically opposes that very section of the policy."
Mary Ellen Douglas told LSN today, "Hopefully such mistakes won't happen again, especially at a time when the economy is so bad."
First of all, the Campaign Life Coalition is not an arm of the Conservative Party of Canada. Declarations by this organization should not be interpreted as reflecting the official policy of the party or the government, even if they are supported by a back-bench Conservative MP from Saskatchewan.
Brad Trost does not necessarily represent the CPC any more than former Liberal MP and notorious homophobe Tom Wappel represented the Liberal Party or the governments of Jean Chretien or Paul Martin, in which he served as a back-bench MP for many years.
Here's Mr. Wappel in a policy paper he wrote while serving as an MP for the Toronto riding of Scarborough West on the subject of protecting gays from discrimination:
This portion of the paper makes clear the reasons for my objections to those who would force society to regard homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and why I see this as the inevitable result of recklessly (albeit with the best of intentions) adding "sexual orientation", howsoever defined, as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It further outlines my thesis that matters which deal with homosexuality are deeply moral, upon which a free vote must be permitted.
also from Wappel:
Homosexuality is statistically abnormal, it's physically abnormal and it's morally abnormal.
Just an isolated incident? How about this from former Liberal MP Roseanne Skoke, who also once ran for the leadership of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party:
Homosexuality is not natural. It is immoral and it is undermining the inherent rights and values of our Canadian families and it must not and should not be condoned.
The Liberal Party has had its share of MPs who failed the Liberal litmus test of acceptance of gays: support for gay marriage. In 2005 when the Liberal government introduced a bill in Parliament to legalize gay marriage across Canada, 32 Liberal MPs (out of 127 present) voted against the legislation. Joe Comuzzi resigned from his cabinet post rather than obey a direct order from Prime Minister Martin to all of his ministers to vote for the bill, saying at the time "I promised faithfully to the people of Thunder Bay-Superior North that I would defend the traditional definition of marriage". Liberal MP Pat O'Brien quit the party rather than vote to support gay marriage.
OK, maybe a few rogue Liberal back-benchers didn't get the memo and went off-message. Surely someone who had served in the Cabinet in jobs with important national responsibilities would support the party line? Here's Liberal Joe Volpe, who served under two Liberal Prime Ministers as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, and was the senior minister responsible for Ontario and Toronto:
... marriage cannot be treated like any other invention or program of government. Marriage serves as the basis for social organization; it is not a consequence of it. Marriage signifies a particular relationship among the many unions that individuals freely enter; it's the one between a man and a woman that has two obvious goals: mutual support and procreation of children (barring a medical anomaly or will). No other type of relationship, by definition, can fulfill both goals without the direct or indirect involvement of a third party....for most MPs, marriage remains the cornerstone of society, not some government response to the most recent lobby.
Yes, there are social conservatives in the CPC who don't support acceptance of the homosexual "lifestyle" and are opposed to gay marriage. There are Liberals who share the same views - does that fact make it impossible for gays and lesbians to be Liberals? Furthermore, the CPC is a political entity independent of the Government of Canada. The CLC's article, which states "Given the fact that the Conservative government supports marriage as a union of one man and one woman in Section 68 iii of their Policy Declaration ..." is misleading. This policy was a plank in the election platform of the Conservative Party - the Government of Canada's policies support no such thing. Prime Minister Harper held a free vote in the House of Commons regarding gay marriage - a majority of MPs (including many Conservatives) voted not to reopen the issue, and I take Harper's word for it that the issue is now closed. I'm sure if I had the time I could wade through Jean Chretien's Red Book and pull out policies that might be embarassing to Liberals too (abolish the GST, anyone?)
The Campaign Life Coalition's website is confusing two separate issues: taxpayer support for Toronto's Gay Pride parade and gay marriage. The Gay Pride issue is a separate thing, and I have to admit that I have a few problems with public nudity at something that was advertised as a family event - that doesn't make me homophobic. If an event is publicly funded, participants shouldn't be surprised if it attracts scrutiny if laws are broken. Gay Pride should be treated exactly the same as Caribana, and I'd wager that the government would have a few things to say if people were strolling down Lakeshore Blvd stark naked wearing cock rings and waving dildos during that event. Would that make Conservatives intolerant of Caribbean immigrants?
I'm the first person to admit that the Conservative Party of Canada isn't a perfect fit for gays, but my support for a party doesn't depend solely on the issues of gay marriage and whether the leader marches down Church Street in the Gay Pride Parade. There is a host of political, economic and foreign policy issues that I'm more concerned about that would make me rather crawl on broken glass than vote Liberal. I sleep fine at night - thanks for asking, Warren. How do YOU sleep at night?