Throwing Marriage Away: Why Conservative Delegates Chose Divorce
By now, most Canadians have heard the news: delegates to the Conservative Policy Convention in Vancouver have removed from the party’s policy book its support for traditional marriage between one man and one woman. This decision sends a clear message that the party endorses other kinds of “marriage”.
Many saw this coming but others were blindsided by the 2-1 delegate division on this important issue. The question is why have party delegates taken this policy off their books and what are the implications for Canadian voters?
In the title, I used the word “divorce”. I didn’t mean divorce between a husband and wife, although no-fault divorce (an oxymoron if ever there was one) has had, and continues to have, a most devastating effect on our children and young adults, our social structures, our communities and our economy. No, I was talking about a divorce between the pragmatic element of the Conservative Party and those in the party who still believe in “conserving” that which has value.
The media likes to call these two groups the “fiscal conservatives” and the “social conservatives”. In their view, it is possible to hold fiscally responsible positions about debt, spending, entrepreneurship and government intrusion, while rejecting pro-life positions on abortion, euthanasia, and traditional Christian values in regard to marriage. I question the practical application of this kind of division. After all, the so-called “fiscal conservatives” of Mr. Harper’s 10-year reign added over $150 billion to the national debt and allowed the size and cost of government to grow. Mr. Harper promised to do nothing to regulate abortion (and kept his word) but he also promised to run balanced budgets and failed to do so.
More importantly, I question how those who hold “socially conservative” views can continue to enthusiastically support a party which has decided that the family unit composed of a husband, wife and children should no longer be considered the norm and essential to the well-being of our country. Some principles are just too important to be bartered away for votes or public acclaim. The sanctity of life, the core value of the traditional family unit, personal freedoms to speak, worship and associate—these things define our lives as individuals and as a nation. To abandon them for perceived partisan advantage is not only cowardly but suicidal.
Same-sex marriage (the most obvious alternative to traditional marriage) was foisted upon this country under a Liberal government in 2005. At that time, most Conservatives spoke and voted against it. Liberal MPs were whipped to vote for it and it passed (barely) without the approval of the public. Its legal antecedent came from the Supreme Court’s faulty decision in the 2005 Egan case in which the court pretended that “sexual orientation” (a phrase not found in the Charter) “should have been included” and based its decision on its own predilections, not on historical facts or the will of Parliament.
Since then, the public has been deceived into thinking that we have no choice but to adapt our policies and principles to the will of the Supreme Court. That view has carried on into other spheres, most notably the descent into madness of approving the killing of patients by their doctors (Bill C-14, now being debated in the House). Of course, it’s not true that nine unelected judges have the moral and legal right to create new laws or throw out old laws at their whim. Our parliamentary democracy is based on the “supremacy of God and the rule of law”. Judges who elevate their own opinions above those of God do so at their peril. Politicians must have the courage of their convictions and resist evil.
“There is a way that seems right to a man but it leads to death”. This profound statement tells us that when, as individuals or as a nation, we look for an “easy way out”, we sometimes make choices that have unintended and disastrous consequences. That will surely be the case if Canada adopts physician-assisted suicide. It will also be the case for the Conservative Party if it continues to seek broader public support by adapting itself to the low moral standards of this age. The victory celebrations that took place on the convention floor when delegates opted to endorse same-sex marriage ring very hollow when we consider that true marriage and the traditional family—building blocks of any strong society—have been abandoned.
The Christian Heritage Party has always supported and always will support the family model designed by God our Creator: one man and one woman joined in a lifelong commitment, with or without children. When circumstances result in single-parent homes or “blended families”, God’s design still applies. Our nation will prosper when more of our citizens—and the politicians who represent them—recognize and defend this God-ordained pattern for marriage and family. Following this weekend’s sudden shift in the Conservative Party’s definition of marriage, many long-time Conservative members are contacting us and sharing with us their disappointment at the progressive decline of traditional family values in the party they once called home. Some have taken out memberships with the CHP and have committed themselves to helping us maintain our principled and consistent stand in the midst of confusion and compromise. If you want to help the CHP in our support of life and family, join us today! We need more members willing to proclaim and support God’s design for healthy families. If you’re already a member, there are many ways you can help us spread the message and prepare for the next election. Like all political parties we need your financial support as well as your moral support. We need team members and candidates, volunteers and prayer partners. We look forward to working with you. God’s standards have not changed.