Here are all the fantastically amazing entries posted during November, 2006
An enormously improbable 94% of Scarborough constituents want to re-open the marriage debate. At least, that’s the world according to their MP, John Cannis, who derived these results from the responses to his own uniquely-worded survey.
Last Friday, in the lovely St. John’s Greek Orthodox Church, John held a meeting to discuss why same-sex marriage is a horrific, dangerous, all-out nasty, terrible, uh… thing. In addition to showcasing his amazing survey, he announced that “polygamist groups use [same-sex marriage] to pursue their own Charter cases,” also adding that the current legislation doesn’t address the “issue of same-sex adoption” and that “if a priest or pastor refuses [to solemnize a same-sex marriage], he is not protected.”
You know what? That looks like fun! Let me try:
After the speech, John joined the magical forest gnomes as they danced out into the sugar-drop rain with their mushroom umbrellas. After a hearty meal of pinecones, he lead all the woodland creatures in song, rejoicing and dancing along to Crystal Water’s Gypsy Woman. “La da dee, la da daa,” they giggled.
Meanwhile, back in the land of Scarborough, constituents actively pondered why their MP isn’t fighting polygamy instead of same-sex marriage, if that’s what he’s really worried about. They also decided that adoption probably isn’t mentioned in the marriage legislation because it’s really a marriage law that deals with marriage rights, not adoption. Later, they scratched their heads heartily at the bizarre notion that priests aren’t protected. “Are you freaking kidding me?” they asked rhetorically. “It’s stated redundantly in the preamble to the whole equal marriage law! All the MPs read it! The Supreme Court of Canada was even consulted before the initial debate even began and ruled that clergy is protected by the Charter!”
Then the constituents collapsed into comas and waited for this nonsensical demagoguery to be done with, as I’m prepared to do.
Ah, that was fun. Well, until Friday, folks!
- Scarborough MP discusses same sex marriage question with residents [Scarborough Mirror]
So how far can hysterical anti-gayness get you in a race for Alberta’s premier? Well, pretty far, actually!
Ted Morton came in a close second in the latest vote, confirming my suspicions that Mountain Standard Time is actually several decades in the past.
Frontrunner Jim Dinning, while still pretty darn anti-gay, resembles a mixture of Snagglepuss and Charles Nelson Reilly in comparison to Morton, whose unnatural affinity for anti-gay laws has earned him the title of “Da Man,” put to the tune of a SUV-dealership jingle. I’m not kidding.
The next (and hopefully final) vote is on December 2.
So, could there be an upside to a Morton-led province? Well, like I’ve always said—if you can’t be a shining inspiration, a horrible warning is just as effective.
- Split feared in Alberta Tories [Toronto Star]
Bill Whatcott, the anti-gay activist who had his nurse’s license suspended, has been ordered to pay $17,000 for repeated human rights violations. The kicker? He’s refusing to pay.
In an open letter hand-delivered to 3500 households, Whatcott explained his rationale for the civil disobedience, painting himself as a saviour of children—who he says are in immediate danger of being molested by homosexuals. Observe his ever-so-moving penmanship:
It is a fact that a greater percentage of homosexuals molest children than their heterosexual counterparts. Sodomites only consist of between 2 – 3% of the population. Yet they commit of over 33% of the reported sex offences.
Charming. I feel the sympathy already. Gee, Bill, I can’t imagine how you were found guilty of hate crimes…
Incidentally, the paper that Whatcott cited for the above “fact” was written by one Dr. Timothy Dailey (Ph.D in religion) and published by the anti-gay lobby group “Family Research Council.” It has been thoroughly disproved and runs contrary to every single peer-reviewed study on the subject. Even the suppliers of the statistics that Dr. Tim cited to arrive at his conclusion have decried the work as deceptive manipulation. One, Dr. Nicholas Groth, even demanded that any reference to his work be removed from the offending paper; an extraordinarily rare move in the academic community.
Whatcott knows all this, but hey—can you blame him? I mean, his only other choice is to do something crazy like, I dunno, be big enough to admit that his actions were libelous and wrong and accept the consequences.
Have fun avoiding the law, Billy!
- Message of hate not welcome [Leader-Post]
- Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children? [Box Turtle Bulletin]
- Regina Family Activist Will Refuse to Pay $17,500 Fine for Homosexual Hurt Feelings [Lifesite]
Justice Minister Vic Toews has confirmed that Stephen Harper will keep his promise and vote on whether or not to revisit same-sex marriage before parliament ends this Winter. The vote is expected to fail spectacularly, so right-wing special interest groups have been pressuring the government to delay the vote as long as possible.
As for me—it’ll sure be nice to finally get this nonsense over with. If I had to describe it, I’d say it’s a little like getting through poplar fluff season… Not terrifically threatening, but not too pleasant either.
- MPs to revisit gay marriage [Toronto Star]
- Pro gay marriage group demands PM hold vote on issue [CBC News]
A group of U.S. Catholic bishops decided last week that the Church ought to be more accepting of gay people. In fact, after lengthy deliberation, they’ve officially adopted new guidelines acknowledging that gay people do not choose their orientation and should therefore receive communion! Well, with some provisions, of course. If you have sex, try to marry your partner, or tell anyone you’re gay, then there’s no communion for you!
So, there you have it. The Church’s definition of gay is now “total closet case.” I guess that’s still better than their old definition: “Spawn of evil incarnate.”
- Catholic Bishops tell gays to remain celebate [Reuters Canada]
The Toronto District School Board sent out a new student census last week, and it includes that age-old question of academic relevance: You gay or what?
The survey results will be compared with the student’s grades and achievements at the end of the year. The whole thing is supposed to help the board better understand diversity and student needs.
As for my thoughts… Back in high school, I was so deep in the closet that I’m still finding socks stuck to me with static now and then. Let’s just say my grades and achievements wouldn’t have been counted in the right pile. Well, OK; perhaps if the school board found it as obvious as everyone else…
- Student census: a question of orientation [CBC News]
If anyone’s missing their sheepskin rug in London, Ontario, I think we have a new lead! Dave Burghardt, a Liberal campaign volunteer, was dismissed from his post yesterday after news broke about his, uh, interesting blog. Dave was originally hired as the communication’s director for Liberal MP candidate Glen Pearson.
Now, Dave’s blog seems to have mysteriously vanished from the Inter-web, but luckily Google’s cache is capable of seeing through time. That means the blog’s not really gone; and, let me tell you, it’ something to behold! Here are just a few gems: (Say, why don’t you grab some popcorn? I’ll wait.)
- On Belinda Stronach leaving the Tories: “all of this demonstrates one more reason why women shouldn’t be allowed to run for office, much less vote.”
- After same-sex marriage becoming law: “the oligarchy of the Supreme Court will strike [religious freedom] down and classify your Bible as Hate Literature round about Thanksgiving Day 2006. Heard it here first!”
- His description of same-sex marriage itself: “the God given right to making a life long commitment to anal sex.”
- He gives a hearty “Bravo” to the following comment on the gays: “try interfering with [their] bathhouse sex habits, then listen to the sonic cries of ‘homophobia’ reverberate across the land.”
- And a few posts down: “apparently some people think I am obsessing about same-sex marriage…”
Obsessing? No, no, no! Well… Maybe, OK—yeah: Obsessing. Why, there’s even a full-out essay on the evils of gays, which includes this insightful paragraph:
When some scientific evidence suggests a genetic predisposition for homosexual orientation, the case is not significantly different from evidence of predispositions toward other traits—for example, alcoholism or violence.
Fascinating comparison; he’s a pip, that one! Well, good luck with your new party affiliation, sir! (Awooooo!)
- Candidate’s staff member in hot water over blog postings [Ottawa Citizen]
- Statement by Megan Walker on Attempts by Liberal Opponent to Coverup Campaign Scandal [Megan Walker, NDP]
Well, after tallying the results of their news-making homophobic questionnaires, the anti-gay lobby group, Defend Traditional Marriage and Family, have finally announced their endorsements for the upcoming civic elections in Kitchener, Ontario! How splendid!
Every endorsement is, of course, a shining testament to that candidate’s extraordinary anti-gayness. Well… Almost every endorsement.
“I was shocked,” said Jon Huemiller, after reading about the group’s endorsement of him for mayor in a local newspaper. “I wholeheartedly support gay marriage; I am not a closet bigot.” Mr. Huemiller, you see, not only supports equality, but didn’t even respond to the lobby group’s questionnaire, noting that it was still sealed on his desk. “As soon as I saw Defend Traditional Marriage and Family, I thought ‘gay bashing,'” he said.
A spokesperson for the lobby group backpeddled furiously when questioned, saying that—unlike the other candidates—Mr. Huemiller’s endorsement was actually decided on from a telephone interview, not from the results of their questionnaire. Mr. Huemiller confirmed that the group did call one day, but denies that an interview took place. “[They] did all the talking. [They were] trying to persuade me to support their coalition.”
Defend Traditional Marriage and Family has agreed to withdraw the endorsement, though mentioning it “smelled a little undemocratic” to do so. (Uh, OK…)
But hey, that’s the kind of stuff to expect from a group that endorses virulently anti-gay candidates who, even if elected, are utterly incapable of doing anything about same-sex marriage in Canada whatsoever.
Waste that time, sister!
- Candidate rejects group’s support [Ottawa Record]
Remember the obsessively anti-gay lobby group Defend Traditional Marriage and Family? (They’re the ones who publicly demanded that a non-religious counseling centre stop providing meeting space to a gay rights group.) Well, now they’re pestering candidates for their local public school board with homophobic questionnaires!
Kitchener candidate, Rob McNeil, said he was baffled by the “irrelevant and offensive” survey:
There was no question of value on it. It just blew my mind because there are so many other important issues going on. There’s school safety, there’s the balanced school day. This is a questionnaire based only on how I stand on the gay rights issue—which, to me, has nothing to do with “can you balance a set of books at the school board?”
Well, that’s the thing with the “pro-family” lobby, isn’t it? They’re one-issue folks. You could be a pointy, baby-eating vampire robot and still win their endorsement, so long as you’re anti-gay. Heck, they’re so one-issue that they’ve got more gay-related material on their website than I do!
Incidentally, only 1 of the 6 candidates ended up receiving an endorsement. According to the group’s newsletter, that candidate didn’t agree with many of their views on gays—but he was the only to actually return the survey.
As you know, yesterday was a big election night in your country, and, well, I’m sorry to report that Beth, Hubert, Karl—and a bunch other people you probably haven’t met—have decided to cancel your wedding. Now, I know this news is disappointing and that you’ve been looking forward to the big day for ages, but those are the breaks. Everyone has been consulted and the conclusion is near-unanimous; they just aren’t ready for you to marry yet.
Now, I know what you’re thinking; you don’t remember ever asking for a public consultation in the first place. But please understand, despite your forgetfulness, it’s important that you stay away from the protection of the courts. In fact, since no one trusts that you won’t use the whole “justice” system, they’ve banned your nuptials via a state constitutional amendment. But, hey, maybe in several decades, when there’s enough support to revoke part of the constitution, they’ll all reconsider!
Well, uh, you guys take care!
OK, in all seriousness… Though the results of yesterday’s marriage-banning ballots were fully expected, that doesn’t make the consequences any less heartbreaking. My thoughts go out to all those who continue to strive for equality in the face of an ignorant majority’s tyranny. (I’m especially confused that, in South Dakota, there are more people against same-sex marriage than abortion; what gives?)
Oh, and on a semi-local note, I just gotta share this headline courtesy of the Ottawa Sun: ‘I am a liar’ admits meth-gay sex pastor. I’m, err, not sure what a “meth-gay sex pastor” is, so I’ll just assume they’re talking about the whole Ted Haggard deal.
Well, until Friday, folks!
Yes, yes; I know. This has been reported in much greater detail on about 500 cagillion websites, but sometimes something happens that’s so bloody huge it affects my ability—in Canada—to find any other wacky bigotry-related news. So, here goes. By force.
Let me get this not-so-straight-after-all…
Ted Haggard, massively influential evangelical leader, detests gays, but somehow regularly hires a gay sex worker for private “massages.” Oh, and he also buys meth from his gay prostitute, but only because he likes to throw it away. And now he has resigned… You know, for not having gay sex with an escort and throwing away drugs.
Now, not to be terribly presumptuous, but I’d say this is another spectacular failure for the ol’ pray away the gay strategy that Teddy’s always been preaching. So, bets? Will he now suffer the humiliation of his hypocrisies and vanish for good, or do some searching, heal, and, with time, become a powerful ally for equality?
Ah, I’ll just book you down as “the former.”
Now that Alberta premier King Ralph has abdicated his throne, replacement hopefuls met in Red Deer this week to discuss serious issues affecting the lives of every Albertan…
Nah, I’m totally kidding—this is Alberta we’re talking about! Instead, they just threw a collective temper-tantrum over same-sex marriage.
“This is an issue that we do have to take a stand on,” bloviated ejected cabinet minister Lyle Olberg, “I don’t believe the battle is over.” Ted Morton went as far as to state that his focus as a provincial politician is “to protect the rights of people who want to speak out against gay marriage.” In fact, Gary McPherson, a relative unknown, was the only of the 8 candidates to support Canada’s federal law, saying that the Supreme Court has made its ruling and The Province of Alberta should respect it.
As for the rest of the debates… “I felt they were very, very vague tonight,” said one attendee. Another added: “I’d say [previous leadership debates] were a little livelier than this one. We’re not getting the totally different stands this time around.”
So there you go: An entire debate session whereupon the only thing the candidates could accomplish is emphasize that they’re just not very fond of the gays.
Sounds like Alberta Premier material to me!
- Alberta Tory leadership candidates split over gay marriage [Globe and Mail]
- Tories call for more debate at leadership forum [CBC News]
Oh, this ought to be good! The anti-gay lobby group, Institute for Canadian Values, unveiled their latest poll this week, concluding that the majority of Canadians want to revisit same-sex marriage in light of religious freedoms.
The poll’s “big result” is, of course, that a whopping 72% of Canadians do not want clergy to be forced to marry same-sex couples. A very odd thing to include in a poll, considering that the same-sex marriage law already includes redundant preamble stating that clergy can’t be forced to marry anyone. The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled that the Charter guarantees this right, in the same capacity that clergy do not have to wed interfaith or divorced couples.
Where the poll gets especially interesting, though, is in the choice of questions relating to matters which are presently illegal. The pollsters were very quick to state, for example, that 61% of Canadians think a publisher should be able to refuse business to gays.
Really? 61% of Canadians said that?
Luckily, I’m somewhat literate (bear with me), so I was able to read the poll questions myself. Here’s the actual phrasing presented to respondents:
Should a religious person who prints brochures for a living have the freedom to recommend another printer to a homosexual group wanting some brochures printed?
Should a printer have the “freedom to recommend another printer?” What?
The other questions were equally hypothetical and deliberate in not having anything to do with same-sex marriage whatsoever. Not that it matters, of course, as—no matter what the majority thinks—the Charter guarantees, irrevocably, that clergy are protected and that Joe Public can’t refuse squat to nobody.