A very interesting, divisive but respectful debate took place in rooms 220 and 222 of the Vancouver Convention Centre today — one which saw the Conservative Party of Canada take a small step towards joining the second decade of the 21st century.

After delegates to the CPC convention rejected in a different breakout session a motion to establish a youth wing of the party and defeated a constitutional amendment to allow interim leader Rona Ambrose to pursue the permanent leadership, by a vote of 279-143 delegates voted to strike from its policy book the “traditional” definition of marriage — moving the question to a vote in the full plenary session tomorrow.

Gay marriage has been the law of the land in Canada for over a decade. There is no conceivable scenario that would see this matter reopened. As a matter of Charter compliance and popular opinion, this question is settled. I was a Member of Parliament for seven years; I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of constituents over that time who wanted this matter opened again for debate.

All of which begs the question: Why would you not want to delete from your policy statement a definition of marriage that isn’t compliant with the current law, and which few Canadians seem able to get worked up about anyway?

The only conceivable reason would be to reopen old wounds within the party. There have always been tensions within the modern CPC between the ‘progressive’ or Red Tory wing and those in the rural-based Reform movement.

A dozen years after the merger, this plays out as a battle between libertarians and social conservatives. Both factions are strong within the party, and both have high-profile and competent spokespeople. That division is playing out now in Vancouver, one of the most progressive cities in Canada.

Social conservatives would have a hard time finding a comfortable home in either the Liberal or the New Democratic parties. Stephen Harper knew this. That’s why he shut down the so-cons at every opportunity. Social conservatives would have a hard time finding a comfortable home in either the Liberal or the New Democratic parties. Stephen Harper knew this. That’s why he shut down the so-cons at every opportunity.

Caucus members and even declared leadership candidates went to opposing mikes to express their views. Speaking against the resolution, and in favour of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage as an exclusive union between a man and woman, was Saskatoon social conservative Brad Trost. Speaking in favour of striking that definition was Calgary rising star and former junior cabinet minister Michelle Rempel.

Scrumming outside the room, Rempel described the vote as a transformational moment in her political career. A dejected Trost said he would continue to promote the nuclear family as the bedrock of society, whether the delegates vote to drop the traditional definition of marriage or not.

But then he went further. He indicated that he would support neither Kellie Leitch nor Maxime Bernier for the leadership because they both supported the motion. Why anyone would withhold support from a candidate on a question that the vast majority of Canadians see as settled is beyond me, but it’s obviously still a live issue in the party.

Although the vote to move the matter to full plenary tomorrow passed two to one, it’s obviously a burning question for one out of three delegates. Some of the speakers oppose modernizing the definition of marriage on purely philosophical grounds. Others cite more pragmatic, more political reasons.

They point out — probably correctly — that social conservatives represent a significant portion of the Conservative base. They argue if the CPC abandons them, they will stop donating and volunteering and might even stay home on election day.

That might be true — or they might support the Christian Heritage Party, or start a new party. What’s certain is that social conservatives would have a hard time finding a comfortable home in either the Liberal or the New Democratic parties.

Stephen Harper knew this. That’s why he shut down the so-cons at every opportunity — even moving to censor MPs who attempted to bring matters important to them to the floor of the Commons.

But Harper’s gone now, and some of the old fissures in the conservative family may be allowed to persist. Or maybe not. Apparently, late last night, a resolution on maternal health — which invariably would have devolved into a debate on reproductive rights and abortion — was quashed by party brass.

Tactically, it all makes sense. These are largely generational issues. Millennial voters are too progressive and non-judgemental to support re-opening a debate on matters which affect nobody apart from the people making them.

The social conservatives believe otherwise, and they’re not an insignificant part of the CPC. It will be interesting to see this play out on the floor of the full convention tomorrow, and in the caucus and the leadership contest thereafter.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.