FREAK OF THE WEEK: Christopher Plante of the National Organization for Marriage

This past week was full of freakiness between anti-gay-marriage activists and Canada’s iconic coffee-and-donut chain. In fact, the FredBlog’s freaklight shined brightly on Sunday’s “Celebrate Marriage and Family Day” in Rhode Island (an event a friend of the FredBlog dubbed “Marriagestock”). But even after Tim Hortons pulled out of sponsoring this anti-gay extravaganza, Christopher Plante – head of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage – couldn’t stop being so freaky.

First, Plante had this to say to the Canada.com group of news websites. “[Tim Hortons] rescinded the offer today as a direct result of the hubbub in Canada. This is an issue only north of the border.”

Wrong, Mr. Plante. This was not only an issue in the Great White North, but among many fair-minded and clear-thinking people in the United States as well, particularly in New England. In fact, it was an activist in Boston who alerted the FredBlog.

Secondly, this was not “hubbub.” This was Canadians standing up for Canadian law, society and values, leading to a company realizing it had violated its own corporate sponsorship policy.

In subsequent interviews, Plante said he didn’t understand all the fuss since his event was not political.

Just how is holding an event that promotes keeping gays and lesbians as second-class citizens NOT political? Plante didn’t say.

He did say, however, that the event wasn’t religious in nature. Huh? As another friend of the FredBlog pointed out, the event was held on property owned by Catholic Church, the vows were in a Christian format, prayer was part of the event, and there was live worship music.

But then Plante said something that surprised the FredBlog. He said that the event was “open to all,” including same-sex couples, to celebrate the institution of marriage.

Well, that’s a-mighty Christian of Plante. But that didn’t last long.

Plante soon issued “last minute instructions” to his minions. “It is not a political event; its purpose is to celebrate and affirm the value of marriage in Rhode Island, which remains by law a union between a husband and wife. The vow renewal [ceremony] is for couples who are eligible for marriage licenses under current Rhode Island law.”

Plante’s note continued: “Sunday August 16th is going to be a fun and safe time as we gather together to celebrate the goodness and wonder of our marriages to our husbands and wives.” How fun!

Oh, and here’s another special instruction: “No posters, signs, displays or booths except those previously approved by the event sponsor.”

The Providence Journal, the local daily, reported that “100 couples … renew[ed] their marriage vows flanked by a large sign that read, ‘Marriage = 1 man and 1 woman.’” Guess THAT sign was “previously approved.”

Tim Hortons wakes up and smells the anti-gay coffee

Tim Hortons is working double-double time to fix the public relations disaster that was created after the company initially agreed to sponsor an anti-gay event in Rhode Island this coming weekend.

The coffee-and-donut chain – which was founded in Canada in 1964 – angered many after its logo appeared on the flyer for “Celebrate Marriage and Family Day” to be held in suburban Providence on Aug. 16. The Rhode Island chapter of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage is organizing the event, and Maggie Gallagher – one of the most ardent opponents of same-sex marriage in the U.S. – will be the featured speaker.

After the issue went viral over this past weekend, Tim Hortons released a statement announcing it was pulling its sponsorship from the event:

“Recently, Tim Hortons was approached in Rhode Island to provide free coffee and products for a local event, as we do thousands of times a year across Canada and the United States.

“For 45 years, Tim Hortons and its store owners have practiced a philosophy of giving back to the communities in which we operate. As a company, our primary focus is on helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.

“For this reason, Tim Hortons has not sponsored those representing religious groups, political affiliates or lobby groups.

“It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines. As such, Tim Hortons cannot provide support at the event.

“Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.”

Tim Hortons also acknowledged that a regional representative (wrongly) approved the sponsorship agreement.

The company now needs to ensure that this anti-gay, divisive and hateful organization removes Tim Hortons’ logo from its flyers.

Rhode Island is a high-profile target of the National Organization for Marriage, since it is New England’s lone holdout on allowing same-sex couples to legally wed. But now, this group will have to spread its message of fear and unfairness without the help of Timbits.

FREAKS OF THE WEEKS: Sarah Palin, Beer Summit-ers and senators against mermaids

The FredBlog is back from vacation – hey, even a blog deserves some rest and relaxation – and the freaks have been piling up. So let’s shine that freaklight where it is most needed.

Now-former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

In her resignation speech at the end of last month, Palin’s freakiness was on full display, but here are some of the FredBlog’s favorite passages:

·     “In the wintertime, … the cold though, doesn’t it split the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs?” (How about splitting the Pumpernickels from the Sourdoughs?)

·     “Our new governor has a very nice family too, so leave his kids alone.” (Thanks, Sarah, for putting the new gov’s kids in the spotlight as well.)

·     “Hollywood needs to know, we eat, therefore we hunt.” (Yeah, ‘cuz no one gets their food from a supermarket anymore.)

·     “Democracy depends on you [the media], that’s why our troops are willing to do for you. So, how ‘bout in honor of the American soldier, ya quit makin’ things up.” (Um, what!??!?!)

Vice President Joe Biden

He wasn’t supposed to be part of the so-called Beer Summit planned for President Barack Obama, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley. But Biden, who just happened to be in the neighborhood, managed to take part anyway. (Is beer the reason Biden keeps putting his foot in his mouth?)

Obama, Gates and Crowley

The Beer Summit was supposed to be part of a “teachable moment” about racism. In the end, it was a mere photo op – we couldn’t even hear what they were saying. It was just pretty pictures to make Obama et al look like they are doing something proactive.

Sens. Sam Brownback and Mary Landrieu

The Kansas Republican and Louisiana Democrat came together to introduce a bill to prohibit the creation of human-animal hybrids, including – yes – mermaids. (They obviously didn’t like the movie “Splash.”) Good thing they are working on such burning issues as mermaids and mermen instead of things like the economy, health care and the job market.

Congressman Todd Tiahart

The Kansas Republican, as part of his anti-abortion rhetoric, ruminated on the House floor what life would be like if President Obama’s mother had had an abortion. Now that’s classy.

Tennessee state Sen. Paul Stanley

Believe it or not, another anti-gay socially conservative Republican has been caught having an extramarital affair. Stanley finally admitted not only to having the affair with an intern, but also taking explicit photos of her. Stanley – who recently introduced a bill to bar unmarried couples, both gay and straight, from adopting children – has since resigned.

Conservative Party of Canada

At the last minute, the ruling Conservatives denied $155,000 in federal economic-stimulus funding to Divers/Cité, the group behind one of Montreal’s gay pride festivals, forcing the cancellation of a number of high-profile events. This move came soon after a similar decision was made regarding Pride Toronto, all because the federal tourism minister had her picture taken with drag queens. The Conservatives just need to grow up.

New Democratic Party of Canada

The far-left party is considering dropping the “new” and changing its name to the Democratic Party of Canada. That’s all well and good, except something gets lost in translation. You see, in French – Canada’s other official language – Democratic Party translates as “Parti démocrate,” making its initials PD. However, PD sounds like “pédé,” which is a slang term for gays in French. Best to stick with the name as it is. 

Clinton “evolution” points to Obama hypocrisy

Former Bill Clinton – the man who gave us the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) back in 1996 – now supports marriage equality for same-sex couples.

This is a stunning reversal for Clinton. DOMA, after all, blocks the federal government from recognizing legally wed same-sex couples in states where it is permitted. The legislation also allows a state not to recognize a legal same-sex marriage performed in another state, a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s full-faith-and-credit clause.

Clinton made the declaration in response to a question at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 8, and reported by The Nation magazine’s website.

“I think all these states that [legalize same-sex marriage], should do it,” Clinton said, according to The Nation. When asked about his personal feelings on the subject, he said, “I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it’s wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that.”

This comes after he told an audience at Toronto’s Convention Centre this past spring that his position on same-sex marriage was “evolving.”

Evolving, indeed.

Of course, it’s somewhat safe for Clinton to say all this now, nine years removed from office. Clinton won’t suffer any of the political consequences he faced back when he was in the Oval Office.

At the same time, however, same-sex marriage was merely an idea then – not the reality that began in 2004 in Massachusetts. So it was much easier in the ‘90s to oppose marriage equality – and the tide continues to turn.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of Democrats favor equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Which brings us to Barack Obama.

The current president not only opposes same-sex marriage (opting for separate-but-not-really-equal civil unions), but his Justice Department filed a vile brief in support of DOMA despite once promising to repeal the legislation. (See FredBlog entry “Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite,” June 18, 2009.)

Other high profile Democrats have recently come down on the side of marriage equality, including Howard Dean, who signed the nation’s first civil unions law back in 2000 as governor of Vermont.

Interestingly, Vermont’s new law allowing same-sex couples to marry goes into effect on Sept. 1. Other states joining the marriage equality club this year are Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Iowa.

That’s a lot of evolving. President Obama, the ball is now in your court.

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: The Conservative Party of Canada

This week, there was so much freakiness attached to one issue that the FredBlog had no choice but to shine its freaklight on not just one person, but the entire Conservative Party of Canada for getting a little too excited about a photo of drag queens.

By now, you know the story – if not, see the posting from July 8 below. As you will see, there are just way too many freaks involved to point to just one. So this week’s freaks include:

·      Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He’s the one who disciplined Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy for granting less than $400,000 of government money to Pride Toronto. Ablonczy was doing nothing more than her job; in fact, she deserves credit for doing her job without regard to partisanship or ideology. Shame on Harper for kowtowing to Canada’s radical anti-gay right and punishing her.

·      Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost. He’s the one whose head spun around regarding Albonczy getting her picture taken with drag queens. As he told the far right-wing website LifeSiteNews.com, “The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by – I think it’s safe to say by a large majority – of the MPs.” Actually, Brad, it IS government policy to support tourist events like Pride, even if it makes you and your minions uncomfortable.

·      M.B. Callaghan of Toronto. There was much public reaction to the Pride funding fiasco, and most of the letters to the editor in the Toronto Star slammed the Conservatives for their crass political pandering. Still, too many people’s sentiments matched Callaghan’s, whose nonsensical letter stated, “It makes perfect sense to discipline Diane Ablonczy for authorizing federal money for a Gay Pride Parade. Surely, if gays had to pay for it themselves, they’d give it up. But if they parade it, it could look like fun to schoolchildren. Imagine – streets full of children behind a gay piper. How could Toronto go Conservative after that?”

·      Divers/Cité executive director Suzanne Girard. Amazingly, the head of the organization behind Montreal’s largest LGBT festival actually DEFENDED the Conservatives on this front. As the Canadian Press reported it, Girard simply “blamed right-wing fringe elements for unfairly trying to embarrass the Conservatives and cause problems for events like hers” (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090708/national/tories_gay_festivals). That may be, but if Harper is willing to give in to these “fringe elements,” then Harper’s actions are indefensible.

·      Minister of Transport John Baird. Some Conservatives have had the fortitude and common sense to criticize Harper for punishing Ablonczy. But closet-case Baird is not one of them. Even former MP Monte Solberg – who is himself on the far right – wrote on his blog: “The truth is that, for better or worse, the Conservative government has provided grants for this kind of thing in the past. … [Ablonczy] deserves better than to be ratted out by a colleague on an issue that is a complete loser for the party.” As the Toronto Star editorialized, “Shame on other senior Conservatives for not adding their voices to [Solberg’s].” So, shame on John Baird, who has no problem being out in Toronto’s Gay Village – the site of the now-controversial Pride parade – but yet stays silent while on Parliament Hill.

FREAKINESS = SARAH PALIN

What would the week be without some form of freakiness from our favorite soon-to-be-former-Alaska-governor, Sarah Palin.

To begin with, she made fashion news for her press conference in hip waders. (Did the Republican Party pay for THOSE too?)

She also continued to explain how quitting her job doesn’t make her a quitter. Because, y’know, in her world, “quitting” means “leading.”

But the best Palin freakiness was her attempt to be all, like, intellectual and such as. You see, she’s been tweeting a lot lately – guess she has more time to devote to Twitter since giving up her day job. One day last week, she gave specific advice to children:

·      “So AK Kids: take time to take your parents fishing: ‘You learn more about a person in an hour than in a year of conversation’ – Plato”

Wow, how impressive, right? She’s quoting Plato. One problem though – Plato never said this!

In fact, it’s credited to author Richard Lindgard in an etiquette guide from 1670! That’s a helluva lot later than Plato’s time. (Or maybe to Palin, everything before Ronald Reagan is just one big blur.)

Worse yet, the actual quote does not reference fishing, but GAMBLING! “If you would read a man’s disposition, see his game,” the quote reads. “You will then learn more of him in one hour, than in seven years conversation.”

So Sarah, better to quit the literary quoting and just stick to your day job. Oh wait, too late.

Hard-right anti-gay Conservatives 1, Moderates 0

When it comes to Canadian Conservatives reaching out to the gay community, it’s one step forward then two steps back.

Even I was surprised this week after I read that the ruling Conservatives had given almost $400,000 to Toronto’s Pride Week as a way of bolstering Toronto and its Pride celebration as tourist destinations. I was even more surprised when I learned that Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy – a member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Calgary cabal – traveled to Toronto to deliver the check personally.

Pride Toronto, the event’s governing organization, happily accepted the check – in part as a way of showing that Pride is not partisan.

So this was a good news story all around. Right?

Well, it WAS until the right-wing extremists in the Conservative Party went berserk about the government giving money to a gay event.

But what was Ablonczy’s worst offense, according to some? Horror of horrors, she had her picture taken with drag queens!

The result? Ablonczy has been disciplined. Prime Minister Harper stripped her of her power to announce tourism investments (even though she’s the minister of tourism), and she’s been muzzled from talking to the media.

Brad Trost, a Conservative MP from Saskatchewan, was reportedly the first to have his head spin over the site of Ablonczy and drag queens. He told the far right-wing website LifeSiteNews.com, “The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by – I think it’s safe to say by a large majority – of the MPs.”

In response to inquiries from the Toronto Star, a government spokesperson said, “I know that certainly there’s going to be folks who have their concerns and they’ve raised those concerns with us. … We’re listening.”

An unnamed source in the party told the Star: “The TV shots of [Ablonczy] with transvestites inflamed some people.”

Wait a minute. All this “inflamed some people”? And the Conservatives say, “We’re listening”? Real nice for a party that has been trying to hoodwink moderates into thinking it’s not the scary right-wing party it used to be when it was called the Reform Party.

Kudos to Ablonczy for putting partisanship and wedge politics aside in order to honor what she reportedly called Pride Toronto’s “polished and professional” application. Besides, government investment in Pride celebrations is nothing new – in Toronto, both the city and the province support the event, one of the city’s biggest tourism income generators.

In the end, what this Conservative kerfuffle means is simple. Like the Republican Party in the U.S., the Conservative Party of Canada – despite moderates in its ranks – is still beholden to right-wing extremists whose exclusionary ideas and wedge-issue politics are far outside the mainstream.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who is able – in a single rhetorical flourish – to turn South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s infidelity into an attack on same-sex couples.

On the heels of Sanford’s now-infamous Argentinean disappearing act, many talking heads are opining on whether or not the Republican Party can still call itself the “family values” party without people laughing.

While many GOPers are clinging to the “family values” myth, Romney just couldn’t help himself and took it all one step too far. On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Romney told moderator David Gregory:

“I don't think there's any question but that we aspire to the highest standards of ethical conduct and that we aspire to values that'll make America stronger. There's no question. But the best thing you can do for raising a child is to have a mom and dad love each other in a home. And to say that and to say we want to see marriage between men and women, that we want to see families raised with the benefit of people who are married, that's a very important part of our culture.”

Wait a minute. A bunch of self-righteous Republicans reveal that they cheated on their wives, therefore GAYS shouldn’t be allowed to marry?!?!?

But it gets worse. Romney continued:

“It's part of what our party believes. We believe in life.”

What? These same self-righteous Republicans talk about their infidelity, therefore women shouldn’t have reproductive freedom?!?!?

Then he couldn’t help but return to his anti-gay conclusion:

“I'd rather be talking about the truth and indicating that sometimes people fall short than not saying what's true. And what is true is that America is a stronger nation if we have a culture that includes the creation of families with moms and dads and marriage and sacrifice for the next generation.”

All this comes from the flip-flopper who once called himself pro-choice and who, when challenging Sen. Edward Kennedy back in 1994, said he would be more pro-gay than Kennedy – one of the most liberal liberals in the U.S. Senate!

Romney is nothing but a disingenuous hypocrite who will say anything for political gain.

Need further proof? Gregory also asked Romney if he was considering running for president again in 2012. Romney’s response? “Well, that's way beyond my horizon at this point, to think about what's going to happen in 2012.”

Well Mitt, no one’s buying that!

FREAK OF THE WEEK: U.S. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on John Ensign, the latest in a long line of Republican hypocrites who love to talk about “family values” while gettin’ a little somethin’ somethin’ on the side.

Ensign, a “pro-family” Nevada Republican, came clean this past week by admitting to an extramarital affair. But not only did Ensign cheat on his wife, he did so with a woman who was a campaign staffer at the time. Even better, the woman’s husband was also a campaign staffer!

Frankly, I don’t give rat’s hoo-ha about Ensign’s sex life, but his recent revelation certainly doesn’t sound like the act of someone who professes to uphold so-called “family values.” In fact, he is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage because, as he sees it, gay couples being legally wed undermines the sanctity of marriage.

But cheating on your wife with an employee, right under the nose of the other woman’s husband? That’s A-OK!

Worse, Ensign is a member of the Promise Keepers. That’s the Denver-based men’s Christian evangelical ministry. And according to its own website, “A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.” Good job keeping THAT promise Ensign.

Ensign has also been quick to publicly flog other politicians who have cheated on their spouses. He was one of the Republicans who vociferously went after then-President Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 1998, he told the Las Vegas Sun newspaper that Clinton “has no credibility left.”

Well, Mr. Ensign, now neither do you.

Ensign also went after fellow Sen. Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho, who had his own sex scandal after being arrested in an airport men’s room in 2007 – around the same time Ensign was having his affair.

At the time, Ensign didn’t call on Craig to resign, but said, “I wouldn’t put myself, hopefully, in that kind of position, but if I was in a position like that, that’s what I would do.” Well then, Mr. Ensign, feel free to follow your own advice.

Then again, Mr. Family-Values-Anti-Gay-Promise-Keeper doesn’t seem very good at following his own advice.

FREAKY ENSIGN, PART DEUX

As if all this weren’t enough, the press conference Ensign held to say, “I had an affair,” took place at an odd locale. It was outside of a men’s room, with the “restrooms” plaque hanging over Ensign’s left shoulder.

Was this an homage to Sen. Craig’s cheatin’ restroom woes? Was he planning on meeting Craig there to get some sex-scandal advice? Was Ensign hoping to get some foot-tapping action of his own? We will never know.

Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite

Many gay and lesbian Americans feel double-crossed by President Barack Obama – and rightly so. After all, it was Obama’s clear stance against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that led many to side with him over Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton.

Let’s travel back to the summer of 2007, a time when no one was expecting the battle royale to come between Clinton and Obama. In fact, Clinton was all but assumed to be the next president.

Logo, the gay cable network, held a gay-focused presidential primary debate along with the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay civil rights organization. Inevitably, the issue of marriage for same-sex couples came up.

While both Obama and Clinton agreed on separate-but-equal civil unions over full marriage equality, they differed on DOMA. That legislation, infamously signed into the law under dark of night by then-President Bill Clinton, does two critical things:

1.   It says the federal government does not have to recognize a legally wed same-sex couple, even if they are legally wed in their home state.

2.   It says that other states don’t have to recognize a couple legally wed in their home state. (This is clearly unconstitutional because of the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, which means – among other things – that if a straight couple elopes to Vegas, when they go home to Idaho, their Nevada marriage must be recognized.)

At the Logo debate, Clinton – ever the pragmatist – said that as president, she would advocate repealing part of DOMA, but not the portion dealing with full faith and credit. She explained that it would not be politically feasible to repeal DOMA fully over the next presidential term.

Obama, however, went all in. He not only called for the full repeal of DOMA, but also noted that this has been his position since he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006.

After that exchange, many LGBT Americans took a second look at the race – and while many still sided with Clinton, more and more jumped to Obama.

DOMA, therefore, was a decisive issue for a large number of gays and lesbians looking at the presidential race.

It’s no wonder so many are angry with Obama right now.

Not only is he dragging his heels on high-priority LGBT issues such as repealing DOMA and the military’s anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which he promised to overturn), but his administration’s recent defense of DOMA is nothing but despicable.

In a brief submitted in the case of Smelt v. U.S. challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is a “cautious policy of federal neutrality.” What!?!?! During the campaign, Obama called DOMA “abhorrent.”

As pointed out by the New York Times in a June 16 editorial, this “neutrality” argument is “an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits – such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns – that heterosexual married couples receive.”

Then there’s the brief’s comparison of same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. As the Times put it, “The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the ‘traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.’ In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s ‘full faith and credit’ clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.”

And to top it all off, the brief argues that DOMA does not discriminate against gays; it merely limits federal benefits to those in opposite-sex marriages. So the Obama administration is saying that a gay man isn’t being discriminated by DOMA because he could go off and marry a woman to get the benefits!

This is twisted and shows ignorance and the kind of wedge-issue politics that Obama spoke out so strongly against during the campaign.

Then after all this odious offense, Obama has the nerve to throw crumbs in the form of partner benefits for federal employees only.

This is hypocrisy and anti-gay demagoguery worthy of George W. Bush. Is this really the change we can believe in that a majority of Americans voted for?

F off John Baird

Allow me to be the first to say “f--k off” back to John Baird in response to his anti-Toronto tirade over the weekend.

You see, Baird – Canada’s federal transport minister – was overheard by a Toronto Star reporter at a Whistler convention of Canada’s mayors saying that Toronto “should f--k off.”

Baird doesn’t like that Toronto only submitted one application for federal infrastructure stimulus money – to help the city replace its aging fleet of streetcars. Other cities submitted multiple applications for a whole host of infrastructure projects.

Toronto Mayor David Miller says that the proposal meets federal criteria. Baird disagrees. Disagreeing is one thing, but does Baird really think he should be telling Canada’s largest city to “f--k off.”

After all, Toronto has a special place in Baird’s heart. It’s his gay home away from home. It’s the place where he can sip cocktails at hip and trendy martini bars and stroll through the gay neighborhood, before returning to his Parliament Hill closet back in Ottawa.

He’s been seen on Church Street, the gayborhood’s gay strip. People wave at him, stop to say hi, and tell him what a good job he’s doing – this, despite being part of a regressive and anti-gay-if-it-could-have-its-way Conservative government.

And now, it seems Baird – this Canadian answer to Mark Foley – has joined his fellow Conservatives in thumbing its collective nose at Toronto.

Fine, Mr. Baird, turn your back on Toronto, the city that welcomes you and accepts you, despite your political faults. Flip Toronto the bird – just don’t be surprised if Torontonians flip it back.