Conservatives expect cookies for axing opposition to gay marriage in federal policy


*Checks watch*

Yep, it’s definitely still 2016. Never mind that the Cons both had, and lost, the debate on gay marriage back in 2005. Let’s beat a dead horse, 11 years later. (Something to look forward to, Americans)

The Conservatives, the right-of-Canadian-centre federal party in Canuckistan, has only now removed its “definition of marriage” from their policy handbook:

VANCOUVER — The Conservative party wiped a policy opposing same sex marriage off its books Saturday, proof many said that the party is truly setting a new course on the road to the next federal election.

A motion to delete sections of the party handbook supporting legislation to define marriage as being between a man and a woman was adopted by a vote of 1036 to 462 delegates at the party convention on Saturday afternoon.

Nearly one third of your party has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era, but whatever, you made the right decision in the end.

Oh wait.

The motion also adds to the policy book support for religious organizations to refuse to perform unions or allow the use of their facilities for events that are incompatible with their faith and belief.

Ding ding ding! Wouldn’t be the Conservative party without some kind of tumorous growth located somewhere in policy.

So you’ve got the 462 delegates spewing social conservatism shit that’s straight out of the Republican playbook, and a sizeable chunk braying about the religious “right” to discriminate. It’s illegal for everyone else to do it, and rightly so, but the religious need their super speshul exemptions from being decent human beings.

“The most important thing we need to remember is we’re not redefining marriage here,” said Natalie Pon, one of the resolution’s sponsors.

“We’re just taking out a definition that is out of date and out of touch.”

Truly, a rare moment of clarity for the Cons.

Depicted: My expression




  1. A Hermit says

    Well better late than never I suppose…

    With any luck this will be the wedge that divides the party and we go back to seeing the right wing vote split between the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Regressives….

  2. says

    “We’re just taking out a definition that is out of date and out of touch.”

    Oh fuck. :Recovers from choking on tea: Wouldn’t it be grand if they updated themselves so they weren’t consistently out of touch with reality?

  3. says

    A change in policy does not mean a change in attitude. This is naught more than pandering for votes in the hope of being electable again. Canadian political history has had many Nights Of The Long Knives, especially in rightwing politics. The rightwing party (they are not conservatives) could use a purge of its leadership.

    Traditional conservatives are sane, sober, rational and argue from the same facts, but they reach different conclusions about what to do (e.g. Angela Merkel). One may not agree with their decisions, but at least their arguments can be understood, respected and don’t come from somewhere off in la-la land. The clowns of the republican north party are not conservatives in the Clark/Stansfield/Diefenbaker sense that I grew up with and still respect.