Office computers belonging to the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa have been used to vandalize Wikipedia articles with anti-gay comments. (Wikipedia, for the benefit of the recently non-comatose, is an online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute.)

A reporter for the St. Catharine’s Standard found several anti-gay themed edits—including one asserting that a Conservative MP who voted in favour of same-sex marriage was gay himself, and another declaring that Mussolini and Hitler were gay lovers.

A quick search using the Wikipedia Scanner revealed even more Parliament edits. One in particular, made to an article entitled Members of the 39th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage, replaced the unbiased phrase “opposite-sex marriage” with “normal and traditional marriage,” and the phrase “an anti- gay marriage website had indicated [...]” with “a real marriage website had indicated [...]” The vandal also inserted a new sentence into the article: “However, it seems that the Canadian public is still firmly against same-sex marriage by a large majority.” A demonstrably false claim.

Each instance of vandalism was reverted almost immediately, as is the Wikipedia norm, but it’s great to know what our Government workers do with their our time, no?

• Beware of what you read on Wiki; Government computers used to make peculiar edits on website [St. Catharine's Standard]

Joe Comuzzi, the Liberal MP who resigned his cabinet position over same-sex marriage in 2005, is now the Tories’ latest member.

Comuzzi was a member of the Liberal party for 18 years, but left his swanky cabinet gig in disgust over the party’s support of same-sex marriage. Later, he was kicked out of the party entirely for supporting the Tory budget against party lines. Until yesterday’s move, he was sitting as an independent.

Of course, I imagine that half of the Tory caucus strongly disagrees with their latest member’s admission, and will vehemently insist that Comuzzi run in a by-election first. At least, that’s how I remember the party feeling about this sort of thing in 2005…

• Harper welcomes former Liberal MP into Tory fold [CBC News]

A discriminatory law from 2004 that disallowed same-sex spouses from sponsoring their partner for Canadian citizenship was quietly overturned by the Conservative government last week. In fact, the law was reversed so quietly, that it was announced by none other than NDP MP, Bill Siksay.

“Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley has informed the Standing Committee of Citizenship and Immigration that her department’s interim policy on same sex marriage [...] has been annulled,” Siksay said in a press release, adding: “This is another important victory towards full equality of gay and lesbian Canadians.”

Now, there’s no word on why the Conservatives didn’t announce this change themselves, although I guess I could try to share some insight. Let’s see… They, uh, outsourced their policy announcements to the NDP?

No?

Well, perhaps Siksay’s voice resounds with Canadians more. Or—Oh! I know! The parties are merging! The New Canadian Democratic Conservative Reform Alliance. Yes, that sounds about right to me.

• Ottawa ends discrimination for same-sex couples married outside Canada [Canada.com]
• Siksay claims victory on Canadian recognition of gay and lesbian marriages performed outside Canada [Bill Siksay, NDP]

Every now and then I come across an argument against same-sex marriage that’s so unbelievably illogical, it transcends time itself. And, so, I begin this retroactive slap with a Hansard-recorded question by Maurice Vellacott (Tory MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin):

Unless I missed something in history, and I am certainly open to being enlightened, has there ever been a time where, when extending the right to vote, women have been termed men?

That, a delightful retort to the reminder that there have been times when government hesitated to offer equal rights to its citizens.

Now, I’d like to think Vellacott couldn’t have been expecting an answer to his question, but just in case, let me get this over with: No, Mr. Vellacott, Women were never termed men when extending the right to vote.

Fascinatingly, though, Maurice isn’t the only one with this semantic confusion. Months later, David Chatters (Tory MP for Athabasca, since retired) curiously brought up the same topic, saying “When full equality rights were extended to women in Canada [...] they did not have to be called men to be equal.” Ken Epp (Tory MP for Edmonton Sherwood Park) was even brave enough to bring this bizarre logic outside of the House and in front of the press, declaring:

Blacks in the United States never asked to be called white. They just wanted the same rights. Women in Canada sought equal rights without demanding to be called men. And so I ask the question in this struggle for so-called equality for same-sex couple, why do they want to use the word that describes heterosexual marriage?

Now, giving credit where credit is due, these conservative members are correct in some respects. Women did not wish to be called “men” in their struggles for equality. And, nor, to the best of my knowledge, did African Americans ask to be called “white.” But—and maybe this is just me, so correct me if I’m out of line—when, precisely, have gays asked to be called straight?

So, with a small correction to their line of reasoning, I’d like to pose my own question for the three Conservative members: “Honorable members, pray tell: When citizens of the female persuasion were struggling for electoral voice, was ‘civil ballot casting’ ever considered a suitable alternative so that men could continue to participate in the traditional institution of voting?”

I’ll, uh, be waiting for their responses via email.

Well, until Monday, folks, have a good one!

• Hansard – Civil Marriage Act (C-38) [EGALE]
• Harper questions ‘legitimacy’ of same-sex bill as vote nears [CBC News]
• 38th Parliament, 1st Session [Parliamentary Hansard]

Well, I’ve got good news and I’ve got eerie news!

First, the good news: Vic Toews, Justice Minister Extraordinare, has been given the ol’ steel-toewd boot from Harper’s cabinet! Toews, who stated that the 9 consecutive court rulings guaranteeing equal marriage were all mistakes, and who pledged to introduce legislation legalizing discrimination against gays, had his own wacky vision of Justice, and shall be dearly missed on this site. (Sigh. Now, unless Jack Layton suddenly turns homophobic, the only moustache I have left to draw is Bishop Fred Henry’s.)

Now, the eerie news: Some of you may have heard of the multi-million dollar Canadian Museum of Human Rights to be built in Winnipeg. The museum is supposed to feature an exhibit on gay rights, drawing the wrath of right-wing special interest groups. Lifesite, for example, called the museum a “powerful propaganda institute,” adding that its supporters have “made a monster of the word tolerance, [have] raped the word gay, and [have] beheaded the term human rights.” And the kicker: Vic Toews, as the new Treasury Board President, supports it!

Yep, you heard right. Toews will be meeting with the museum’s planners to discuss a $100 million government commitment, saying “[the museum] certainly is a priority that Manitobans want resolved and I want to see how I can meet our commitments.”

So, there you have it! Now, as long as the museum isn’t renamed to the Vic Toews Museum of Human Rights, it looks like I may actually have a reason to visit Manitoba!

• Cabinet shuffle taps Baird for contentious environment file [CBC News]
• Toews committed to human-rights museum [Winnipeg SUN]
• Canada’s $300 Million Temple of Ideology [Lifesite]

Aw, isn’t that just adorable? After losing the premiership race for Alberta in a distant third place, Ted Morton has been given a nice sympathy position as the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development by incoming premier Ed Stelmach.

Now, what do you suppose was one of Morton’s first announcements to the press? Something to do with sustainable resource development, you think? Why, no, silly! Instead, Teddy re-emphasized his commitment to introduce anti-gay legislation.

That’s right, Ted Morton is determined to bring back one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation in Canadian history. Morton’s Bill 208, which was already killed in parliament, resurrected, and killed again, would remove all legal punishment for those who discriminate against gays and force teachers to “warn” parents before acknowledging the existence of same-sex marriage in Canada.

Now, if only I could deny the reality that Ted Morton is in cabinet, I’d be all set.

Incidentally, Alberta’s new premier, Ed Stelmach, while personally against equal marriage rights, says he accepts the federal marriage law.

• Morton will ensure new premier can’t ignore gay-marriage issue [Edmonton Journal]
• Stelmach trims Alberta cabinet [Globe and Mail]
• Stelmach’s team in place [Daily Herald-Tribune]