Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
See this is a simple answer to why you guys were labelled as being religious and socially conservative, but you just don't want to acknowledge it. I'm not trying to change your mind or anything, in fact I'm taking this from the article that you thought would help clear things up for me.
Byfield thinks that the church should have a say in who is allowed to get married and run that institution, and you really have no idea why your party (with him on the board and a major mouthpiece for you) would be construed as religious?
You have 2/3 people running for leadership who are noted social conservatives and one other person, who "have more in common than they have in difference" and can't see why you've been painted as socially conservative?
|
Link also points out that provincial governments have no say over who gets married by whom.
I can see why we're painted that way... the question is; what difference does it make? The large majority of social policy cannot be directed at the provincial level. Regardless, party policy does not reflect people's personal beliefs. As a grassroots organization, party policy is directed by the members, not the executive or leader. In fact, the party policy, as voted on by it's members, is indeed socially moderate and perhaps more democratic than the social policies of other parties.
Regardless of why we're painted that way, it's a false assumption.