Is Rob Ford not exactly what the Gay community wants?

I support gay marriage. For the longest time I did not. But it had nothing to do with being against homosexuality. Far from it... I have many friends who are gay and I see nothing wrong with who they are and the life they lead. They are amongst the most beautiful of human beings.

My stance against gay marriage was based on the fact that marriage has always been a union of a man and a women to be husband and wife. I didn't feel that this definition was an affront to the homosexual community. It was simply a word/term/condition that had been used to define a specific bond between two groups.

And there was nothing to stop the homosexual community from coming up with a term to describe their own unions. Just because the name would be different would not mean that it was less than marriage. After all, we have priests, rabbis and imams, all performing the same functions in society but each with a different name based on the community they were a part of.

With time my views changed and I felt that there simply wasn't enough of a reason not to extend marriage to be the union of two people -- whether heterosexual or homosexual -- in an exclusive bond. And I have been witness to some very logical arguments that outline why even conservatives should not only accept gay marriage but in fact embrace it as a sign homosexuals embrace what are defined as long standing conservative values.

That said, not everybody supports that view. And that is their right. Until we live in a socialist or religious extremist dictatorship where every thought must be authorized by the state, people are allowed to believe what they want or think what they want so long as they do not partake in actions that harm other individuals. I don't want to live in a world where there is no freedom of thought, belief or expression.

Which brings us to the present brouhaha surrounding Rob Ford and his views on gay marriage...

Rob Ford supports the traditional definition of marriage being that of a union between a man and a woman. When mayoral candidate Wendell Brereton dropped out of the race this week and threw his support behind Rob Ford, their views on homosexual unions came to the forefront of media attention. And of course the opportunistic media and other self-serving candidates are swooping in on Rob Ford like carrion for their own political goals.

However, Rob Ford qualified his views stating that gay marriage is not something he even cares to focus on and is outside of his scope, specifically saying, "To each their own... I'm not worried about what people do in their private life, I look out for taxpayer's money." And he's right. The Mayor of Toronto has no control over who can and cannot get married and cannot put laws in place that harm the homosexual community. The dominion of the courts prevent it. As such, Rob Ford's views will not affect the homosexual community at all.

But it does raise an important question...

If Rob Ford holds views that run counter to the homosexual community but has no interest in doing anything against them, is that not the very definition of tolerance? And if so, would Rob Ford not be the very icon of what the homosexual community could hope for in a conservative politician? After all, what better example of tolerance could there be than a man who does not support same-sex marriage but does not lash out at the gay community?

The political left and the gay community have fought for tolerance for decades. Well... guess what? That's exactly what Rob Ford is the icon of.

The real question is, does tolerance run both directions? If Rob Ford can be against the views of the homosexual community but have no interest in taking action against them, is it possible for the homosexual community be against the views of Rob Ford and not take action against him?

I'm not saying that Rob Ford is the ideal candidate. There are many reasons not to vote for him. But, contrary to the popular opinion that his views on same-sex marriage should make him a pariah to the homosexual community, I think the homosexual community would in fact be missing a fantastic opportunity in embracing him.

I could not think of a better way to show the world what tolerance is than to have a mayor who does not share the moral views of homosexuality but is tolerant of the gay community... and a gay community who does not share the moral views on homosexuality that the mayor does but is tolerant of him.