Sure…so long as you weren’t gay or a lesbian and wanted to get legally married. The party policy opposed gay marriages in Canada, even though they were protected by law. Preston Manning and many of the Reform’s SOCONs were personally opposed to homosexuality, to wit his position that "
homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society.”
Ah, yes, Warren Kinsella.
I have little respect for either him or his views on most things, but he is useful from time-to-time and I used to read a lot of his articles when they were published more frequently.
I joined the Reform Party on the day that Kim Campbell tabled her firearms legislation in 1990 or 1991, and sent copies of my application and the accompanying letter of explanation and cheque to Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, my Conservative MP (I knew his kids in school and flew him on a pre-White Paper MP visit to Lahr, during which I pointed out Tiffany as we passed overhead), and one other whom I cannot remember. That was before Reform was officially active in Ontario.
I found the party quite refreshing, due to the quantity and quality of regular newsletters, meaningful surveys, other printed information, and the afore-mentioned diversity of thought and discussion. Policies were very much grassroots, with a little guidance in some cases. There was no more anti-gay discussion than in general society of the time; I don't think that it was an issue to many/most of us at all, either within or without the party.
That was the beginning of my appreciation for individual rights and freedoms, which continues today. Previously, I had considered rights to be basically meaningless, as anything merely existing on paper could be overridden by any government that chose to do so under any pretext (like recently). I still see rights and freedoms as fragile things, which need constant effort to protect and preserve.
And I came to realize that rights had to apply equally to all - neither more nor less to any particular person or group (not that there are any group rights in Canada). If they did not, then they were not rights. There are no such things as "gay rights", for example, only "human rights".
On the subject of gay marriage, when discussion began in the media, I had no objection because nothing was being taken away from me, or anybody else, but neither was I especially supportive. It should not have been an issue at all, really - it just needed government action to legislate the contractual side (basic fairness aspect) and the accompanying ceremonial aspect was up to individual Churches (in the overall organizational sense as well as specific congregations), or Elvises, or whatever. I presumed that divorce lawyers would have been ecstatic due to the increase in their customer base.
When the party became active in Ontario, I attended riding association functions, including several nomination campaigns. In each of the latter, we had several excellent potential candidates, many (possibly even most) of whom were women. We did not care about external features like skin colour, but only such trivial things as intelligence, motivation, people skills, and ethics etcetera.
We welcomed anyone and everyone.
Yes, there were some wild cards in the Prairie region, but their colourful attributes did not seem to garner much real influence within the party overall.
thebeaverton.com
www.macleans.ca
