David Quist, the executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada lobby group, has said that Ottawa should reject a UN declaration opposing the criminalization of homosexuality.

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada was, of course, a furious opponent of same-sex marriage in Canada, as well as an opponent of adding sexual orientation to the list of identifiable minorities protected from hate crimes. But don’t go thinking their opposition to the UN measure is motivated by anti-gay sentiment; oh my no. David Quist explains their real motivation:

The UN shouldn’t be unilaterally attempting to change the laws of a sovereign country. [...] Any laws that Canadians change should be debated by Canadians.

Aw, how nice. They just don’t want to meddle with other countries’ laws.

Of course, over 85 countries jail or fine people just for being gay, and several even impose the death penalty, but that’s really none of the world’s business, is it?

And, of course, the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada would never, ever influence, condemn, or support another nation’s laws. I’m sure the front page of their website would never contain two articles written by Andrea Mrozek, the Institute’s manager of communications, decrying New Zealand’s decriminalization of prostitution, as well as an article supporting the banning of same-sex marriage via constitutional amendment in three U.S. states, and another lamenting the passing of Washington’s Death with Dignity Act.

Why that would make them a… what’s the word again?

• Gay activists urge Ottawa to sign global declaration [Canada.com]

Anchor your bacon, kids! The euphemistically titled Institute of Marriage and Family Canada has officially given up lobbying against same-sex marriage. Dave Quist, the executive director of the (ordinarily quite rabidly anti-gay) organization, cited the “incredibly low” numbers of same-sex marriages in census figures as the reason for abandoning the group’s original purpose. (Same-sex marriages in Canada have risen 32% since the last Census.)

Mr. Quist, parenthetically, was the guy that had called for a royal commission on marriage as early as January, saying that, because of same-sex marriage, “the institution of family will be eroded—resulting in dire consequences for all of us.”

So, what will Dave and the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada be doing with their time now? Frankly, given their fanatical opposition to gays in the past, I never thought I’d see the day they’d move on to other issues. Perhaps they’ll lobby against snowcone exports now that the molten caverns of the underworld have… well, you know the cliché.

• Pro-family group quits fight against gay marriage [Canada.com]

So, sometime after lunch on Wednesday, I was disrupted by a peculiar noise not unlike watermelons being dropped off an overpass. At first I was a little concerned, but after reading some of the online “pro-family” news sources, I discovered it was just all of Canada’s traditional families exploding.

As it turns out, an Ontario judge ruled that a child’s biological father was permitted to be a legal guardian alongside his adoptive lesbian mothers. In short: this kid has two mommies and one daddy.

Of course, that nutty anti-gay lobby was quick to go into assault mode, quickly crafting a connection between Wednesday’s ruling and same-sex marriage. Dave Quist, head of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said the government needs to “hit the pause button” on same-sex marriage and launch a royal commission to study the state of the family in Canada. Former MP, Pat O’brien, was a tad more dramatic, asking: “Words like mother, father, marriage—could they become meaningless?”

Such concern. Could “mother,” “father,” and “marriage” become meaningless words? Like “zooberblab,” “gafungwa,” and… “pro-family?”

I’ll alert the dictionary people. Just to be safe.

But, in the meantime… Why such a reaction? Could the anti-gay lobby’s objections that same-sex marriage denies children of their biological parents really just have been a red herring to cover the fact they’re really just not too fond of gays? (Shock horror!)

And couldn’t this three-parent situation have just as easily happened to an opposite-sex parent family that relied on an in-vitro donor? Why is same-sex marriage even entering the picture? You know, ’cause perhaps—just perhaps—families are classified into more than just traditional and ungodly homosexual fakers.

Well, have a great weekend, kids!

• 3-parent family stirs debate [London Free Press]
• Ontario court says boy can have dad, mom—and mom [CBC News]