(An old post)

Everybody knows Larry Spencer's views on gays are unrepresentative of the Alliance as a whole, right? There goes the (eastern, secular, pinko) media again, tarring everyone with the same brush. Except it's clear he isn't alone in these beliefs. Too many other Alliance MPs have expressed broadly similar sentiments in public over the years -- describing homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice," for example, or regretting its decriminalization -- for this to be put down to a media conspiracy. Nor is the parliamentary caucus necessarily unrepresentative of the base. Somebody has to keep electing these guys. I know, I know: certain Liberal MPs have said much the same sort of thing, not to mention Elsie Wayne's outburst, without their parties being condemned by association. But that is simply to make my point: this isn't an issue that divides parties, per se, so much as it does cultures -- specifically, urban versus rural, the emerging Great Divide in Canadian politics. What all these MPs have in common is that they represent rural or at least non-metropolitan parts of Canada, which do not share in urban Canada's increasingly laissez-faire attitude to homosexuality. What makes it a partisan issue is that most Canadians live in cities: 80% of the population overall, half in just the top 10. Needless to say, these have been rather barren ground for conservative parties in recent years. Indeed, such is the Liberal dominance of the cities that they can pretty well put together a majority without need of any rural seats whatever. Conservatives, on the other hand, can only hope to govern by winning seats in both urban and rural Canada. Which means that on this, as on other cultural issues, they must perform a rather uncomfortable straddle, presenting a more modern face to urban voters without alienating the rural base. I don't think this is impossible, though it will be tricky. In broad terms, it amounts to standing up for the rights both of homosexuals and of those who believe homosexuality is an abomination. What does that mean? It means accepting, once and for all, the principle that the state must not discriminate against homosexuals, even with regard to the right to marry. At the same time, it means upholding the rights of private organizations and individuals to dissent from the public orthodoxy, at least in matters of conscience. (Discrimination in hiring is another matter.) I don't mean to imply this should be just an electoral calculation. There are good, principled reasons why conservatives should come to terms with homosexuality, if not as a legitimate social phenomenon then at least as a fact of life. At the same time, there are good, principled reasons why some conservatives find that difficult. Finding the balance between them is as much a moral as a political quandary.