A Homosexualist Conspiracy, Not

June 4th, 2016 | R. Rados

In the last weekend of May, Conservative Party delegates from across Canada converged on Vancouver to delete the party's traditional definition of marriage, among other things. The proposal to delete the definition was accepted by a vast majority of delegates – 1036 to 462 to be exact. The proposal was originally written and introduced by a few young heterosexuals, including Joseph Heap and Natalie Pon. Leading up to convention, the proposal gained the support of LGBTory, a small group of activists with minimal resources. In the days that followed the convention and the successful policy change, deranged social conservatives began coming out of the woodwork to attack the supporting delegates and to spread misinformation.

Aside from the array of taunts and threats on social media, more prominent critics started to claim that homosexual activists and gay marriage proponents had unfairly hijacked the convention in an attempt to liberalize the Conservative Party. In an interview with the hyper-conservative American outlet, OneNewsNow, the president of Canada's Christian College, Charles McVety, said that LGBTory had spent hundreds of thousands to pay delegates to attend the Conservative convention and vote in support of the proposal.

“'They raised hundreds of thousands of dollars,' he tells OneNewsNow. 'The fee to be a member of this convention was $940, and they raised over $400,000 and paid for 400 delegates. The number of delegates was tiny, it was under 2000 – and they didn't just take over the issue of marriage, they took over this party.'

McVety says most of the Conservative members of parliament weren't on board with the radical resolution, but that the key leaders supported it out of a quest for political correctness. But McVety says the people will eventually have their say at the ballot box.” – OneNewsNow, June 2, 2016

I, personally, didn't realize the sheer number of gay Conservative supporters until I attended a small LGBTory event and the Fabulous Blue Tent gathering in Vancouver. I knew there were gay conservatives in Canada who felt alienated by the big C party's policy, but I had no idea the number of long-time gay Conservatives was that high. With that said, 99% of the delegates who supported the motion to delete the definition of traditional marriage were not gay.

To address McVety's comments means having to unravel a pile of false, uninformed nonsense. First, I don't have access to party information to know whether McVety is actually a Conservative member, but judging by his comments, it doesn't look like he knows much about how conventions work. Second, a large number of party members supported the policy change, including a number of elected Conservative MPs. Third, McVety's comments on LGBTory and their influence is greatly exaggerated.

To get all the way to national convention, the marriage resolution had to make it through several provincial votes and congresses. As an example, the resolution passed the Conservative Alberta Congress with 88%. Once it made it to national convention, it had to pass through a break-out workshop in order to make it to plenary, which it did. Had LGBTory had the resources to pull all this off on a national scale, they'd be running the entire Milky Way galaxy. Delegates must also be party members for a period of time before being eligible to participate in any party conventions or congresses.

McVety's claim that LGBTory raised $400,000 is completely false. There was no massive fundraising efforts on their part and – at best – they raised less than $2,000 and spent just under $750 all together at convention. The opposing end of the gay marriage debate, known as Campaign For Life, probably spent more and raised more. At the plenary debate, some self proclaimed social conservatives also spoke in support of the new resolution. By the time all was said and done, over 1000 delegates voted to support the resolution – many of them without ever knowing about LGBTory beforehand. To most Conservatives, LGBTory was nothing more than a Twitter account.

To give the new resolution a counter-balance, delegates also supported the preservation of religious freedom and the rights of religious groups to make their own decisions. This measure seemed to sit well with most gay conservatives and was part of the reason that so many social conservatives supported the deletion of the party's definition of marriage. At the end of the day, the Conservative Party didn't define marriage, it merely dropped the traditional definition from its policy. It was a small move with a big message.

As for supporting the resolution to appease SJWs and to instill political correctness, McVety is grasping at straws. Political correctness had nothing to do with dropping the party's definition of marriage. Delegates who supported the resolution wanted to eliminate the last barrier in the party's policy that explicitly excludes a particular group of people – a group of people who share a lot of the same values. The several MPs who supported the resolution, like Jason Kenney, Michelle Rempel, Maxime Bernier, Michael Chong and Kellie Leitch weren't doing so out of political correctness, they were doing so to strengthen the party and make it completely inclusive. To most of the MPs, it was about reasserting Conservative values like individual liberty.

There was no coup or conspiracy to hijack the Conservative Party. People who supported the resolution were loosely knit and most of them had never met each other. By the end of convention, many of the delegates who supported the resolution still hadn't met one another. Over 1000 strangers converged in one building and deleted the party's definition of marriage. They weren't paid to be there and all of them were party members. Whether or not any of them were reptilian shapeshifters from the fourth dimension is still up for debate.