[DISCLAIMER]: I know next to nothing about Canadian politics, and am responding purely based on this article by itself. 

The portions past the bolded part are pointless to include from how much the article's ignoring it, and his words seem more about trying to be all-inclusive about anyone's ideas as opposed to hypocritically following both the Church's ideas and Feminism's. He's largely arguing the "Live and Let Live" perspective, suggesting through his use of "And that's why" that he's attending in spite of his differences, in favor of trying to build a Unity With Variety Within as opposed to Fractioned Out Infighting where everyone expects everyone else to behave as they do. He even uses the word "Respect" when talking about it, recognizing that people walk a variety of different life paths. 

This article appears largely guilty of trying to build a Strawman in the name of Sensationalism. If any argument could really be stretched from these words alone, it could be one of a fear of change. 

The entire 'speech' was made out of both sides of his mouth, blowing sunshine in one direction and the next with a layer of emotional guilt tripping to top off the cake of ridiculous. And the interesting aspect, is that too many believe it.  

Throw that piece up against the backdrop of the ridiculous at present as it is currently unfolding, my sides, I swear I crack ribs every time I read the news.