Same as last time. This election, though, I plan to speak in aphorisms -- or try to; I'm not exactly known for my conciseness -- starting with the one above. If that one doesn't sit well with the aforementioned bigots and their supporters, here are a bunch more, written during the course of the campaign (but presented here in no particular order and with a great deal of reiteration):

• "Stand up for Canada"...unless you're a same-sex couple who wants to get married. (The Conservatives' disingenuous motto is in desperate need of some fine print, including the phrase "some conditions apply"; the Canada they're claiming to stand up for certainly isn't mine.)
  
  
• The Civil Marriage Act: not hurting anybody since July 20, 2005 (and neither has the sky fallen).
  
  
• If you don't believe in equality, you shouldn't be first among equals.
  
  
• I'm all for change, but the price of it should not be that some Canadians lose their rights.
  
  
• The more Jason Kenney and Cheryl Gallant speak, the more I want to vote Liberal. (The same goes for David Frum.)
  
  
• To be an Ontario voter is to be caught between the Scylla of conservatism and Charybdis of separatism. (Thank you, Alberta.)
  
  
• If taking our money makes the Liberals arrogant and corrupt, then what does taking Canadians' rights make the Conservatives?
  
  
• "You paid for it," say the Conservatives of the Sponsorship Program, and they're right; it's just too bad that gay and lesbian taxpayers -- for starters -- will have to pay twice. (Say the word "corruption" enough and the electorate will forget that...until it's too late.)
  
  
• Harper's Law: any majority of Canadians that can be ignored will be ignored.
  
  
• Sometimes you know to the core of your being that something is just plain wrong, and while these social conservatives can say the same, unlike them, I have the constitution, courts, and law of the land on my side when it comes to same-sex marriage.
  
  
• Why same-sex marriage? Because it's the litmus test; when one minority can be denied its constitutional rights for no other reason than some people don't like "those people" having them, we are all at risk.
  
  
• Canada has serious issues to deal with, issues that affect all of its citizens, and the Conservatives want to waste time and money -- I wonder how much the inevitable court challenges, alone, will cost us -- fighting same-sex marriage when two-thirds of Canadians say the issue is settled and want politicians to move on?
  
  
• I'm deeply offended by separatists, but you don't see me pushing to have their rights taken away.
  
  
• Of course the Tories believe in the Charter -- they're using Section 2 to deny Section 15, aren't they?
  
  
• Accountability may come before ideology in the dictionary, but not in the Conservative policy book.
  
  
• If you don't love Canada, or can't say that you do, you have no business running for, or being, prime minister.
  
  
• The Conservatives stalwartly believe in the supremacy of Parliament...well, except when it passed the Civil Marriage Act; that one's a do-over.
  
  
• It's ironic that the same people who object to human rights abuses abroad, even going so far as to morally justify the invasion in Iraq because of them, are willing to condone such a glaring one at home.
  
  
• Perhaps those who disagree with our courts' interpretations of the Charter would prefer to live under the American constitution, instead; I hear their courts take a very...nonpartisan approach to it. (Rule of thumb: more guns, less gays.)
  
  
• Another irony is that the conservative electorate of this country includes people who emigrated -- or fled outright -- from countries where they were legally denied freedom, religious or otherwise, only to turn around and fight to have people here illegally denied theirs.
  
  
• The Conservatives putting bigoted ideology ahead of constitutional rights: how very...Republican of them.
  
  
• Opponents of same-sex marriage, particularly those meddlesome American ones, need to be reminded that passing a law in support of Canadians' constitutional rights, especially when it follows numerous Charter-based court decisions, cannot ever be considered "corruption," Liberal or otherwise.
  
  
• If you honestly believe that every Liberal is corrupt, then welcome to the garden path; I hope you enjoy being led down it, and by whom.
  
  
• Standing up for Canada, indeed: one week you have equality and can marry, the next you don't and can't...because...they...don't...like...it. (More to the point, Alberta doesn't.)
  
  
• For a party that's keen to point out, especially to Quebecers, that its campaign is being paid for with "clean" money, the Conservatives are rather mum on how much American money went into fighting same-sex marriage, money that -- tell me this connection can't be made -- is now going towards defeating incumbent MPs who voted in favor of it. (Hey, the Tories make all sorts of accusations with as little proof.)
  
  
• Thought of in card terms, Stephen Harper wanting to hold a free vote on same-sex marriage following an election on corruption -- he made it so; you can't make it through a commercial break without hearing the word at least once -- is like shuffling the deck and re-dealing the hand to see if the outcome would be the same.
  
  
• The price one pays for the protections afforded by the Charter -- say, freedom of religion -- is having other Canadians' rights protected, whether you agree with them or not.
  
  
• It's one thing to run counter to the Charter when you're trying to protect citizens from suspected terrorists or convicted criminals; it's another thing altogether, and so very egregious, when you're trying to prevent some of those same citizens from -- gasp! -- marrying. (The Conservative Party of Canada: protecting Canadians from equality...because we can.)
  
  
• Whenever I see Stephen Harper, one arm gives him the finger while the other twitches like Dr. Strangelove's. (They do legs, too: if you order the Harperciser in the next 56 days, Toryco will include Goose-stepping for Canadians at no extra cost.)
  
  
• For a party that doesn't like judges and their decisions, the Conservatives sure do love Justice Gomery and his findings. (Too bad they didn't appoint him, eh?)
  
  
• Stephen Harper's nebulous free vote on same-sex marriage is the ultimate example of his party's trust-us-now-details-later approach: one does not simply walk into the House of Commons and hold a vote -- you need something specific to vote on, and he wouldn't say what that would be. (A bill to repeal the Civil Marriage Act? An amendment to the Act? A new -- and invariably unconstitutional -- act to supersede it? What, exactly?)
  
  
• The Tory version of federalism would see greater provincial autonomy...so long as their marriage licenses say "man" and "woman."
  
  
• What business does Canada have decrying other countries' human rights violations when Canadians' equality can and will be rolled back at will? (Next time the government goes wagging its finger at another, that should be their response.)
  
  
• Campaigning is to a Conservative what misdirection is to a magician. (Their campaign sleight of hand: insert the words "corruption" and "change" prominently into every speech, interview, and ad, and people will forget what they're really all about.)
  
  
• Breaking the syllogism: the Conservatives "stand up for Canada"; the Charter is a fundamental part of Canada; therefore, Conservatives stand up for...um, no, it doesn't work that way with these people.
  
  
• Revoking same-sex marriage is the proverbial slippery slope; if you can deny gays and lesbians equality after the repeated and consistent high-court decisions of Canadian jurisdictions -- nine out of 13 by the time the Civil Marriage Act passed; that's well over a majority, representing close to 90 percent of the population -- a unanimous Supreme Court reference, and federal legislation passed by the House of Commons (and Senate), then who knows whose rights are next.
  
  
• Driving an automatic means you can flip those annoying blue and white lawn signs the bird without worrying about changing gears.
  
  
• How exactly can rolling back Canadians' rights be considered standing up for Canada?
  
  
• What's the point in having the Charter and courts when any bunch of yahoo politicians can dictate who has rights and who doesn't?
  
  
• If the Conservatives can poke holes in Paul Martin's assertion that the Liberal Party isn't corrupt, then so can Canadians in Stephen Harper's that he won't use the notwithstanding clause when it comes to same-sex marriage. (Does anyone really believe that?)
  
  
• I don't think that people who behave like children inside and outside of the House of Commons -- like, say, one MP calling another a "sleazebag" on camera -- should be the ones deciding which responsible adults don't get to share in their obvious freedom.
  
  
• Trust me, I've spoken to friends, family, professionals, coworkers, and others during the campaign, and Stephen Harper isn't "for all of us." (Yet another motto misnomer from the Conservatives.)
  
  
• Committed partners wanting to finally tie the knot and have what their heterosexual counterparts have had all along: gee, that just cries out for the notwithstanding clause.
  
  
• Stephen Harper: don't like him; don't trust him; won't vote for him -- and that's before I read his 1997 speech. (Yes, I know our electoral system doesn't work that way; you get the picture, though.)
  
  
• Don't me wrong, I agree with the Conservatives on certain issues, including military and defense; it's just that they have an Archie Bunker mentality (pun intended) when it comes to social policy.
  
  
• Canadians should remember that God doesn't grant them their rights -- the Charter, supported by judicial decisions and federal legislation, does.
  
  
• When the Conservatives point out bad things about their opponents, it's called "standing up for Canada" or "being accountable"; when the Liberals do it, it's called "running a negative campaign" or "resorting to attack ads." (Who says turnaround is fair play?)
  
  
• When Stephen Harper stunningly admitted that "times have changed," did anyone else picture a caveman reluctantly lifting his knuckles off the ground? (Of course, he was referring more to himself holding Canada in such low esteem in the past than to the country's social progressiveness over the years.)
  
  
• People saying "Nah, he won't do that..." is a prelude to voter's remorse.
  
  
• The hits keep on coming: first, we get to have our pockets picked by an unscrupulous few in one party; then, as a result, we get to have our Charter rights cherry-picked by the zealous many in another.
  
  
• The Conservative leader is the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing, hoping against hope that everyone else really is a sheep. (Bleat now if you think your Charter rights are perfectly safe.)
  
  
• Somewhere in Ottawa is the Conservative war room, and somewhere inside is a sign with big, bold lettering: "Don't be your right-wing selves until January 24 -- we have them fooled!" (That's just for the MPs; Stephen Harper has his own: "Act warm and fuzzy, wear a turtleneck, and maintain the appearance of centrism.")
  
  
• I cannot and will not sacrifice the rights of my fellow citizens because one political party wants me to punish another.
  
  
• Stephen Harper is indeed George W. Bush's dream candidate; trouble is, the Americans still won't like us no matter how much of a kowtowing lapdog he is (starting, perhaps, with gay rights).
  
  
• When it comes to the rights of Canadians, you don't get to smirk, Mr. Harper.
  
  
• Are the Conservatives actually claiming that every provincial, territorial, and federal judge who has ever ruled, and ever will, on same-sex marriage was appointed by the Liberals, and therefore that the courts have been "stacked" in it and the party's favor? (The gall of those insidious Liberals, appointing judges who actually believe in the Charter and Canadians' rights! How dare they!)
  
  
• Like trust, distrust is earned, and thumbing one's nose at the country's fundamental legal document is a surefire way to earn mine.
  
  
• When attempting to portray Stephen Harper as not part of the old guard, Conservative supporters always point out the fact that he, unlike so many other politicians, isn't a lawyer; however, given his stance on same-sex marriage and the Charter in general, I would strongly suggest that he go to law school. (Be sure to pay attention during Constitutional Law 101, Mr. Harper.)
  
  
• Irony that makes me fall off my chair: when people deride the Bush administration, then crow about throwing "those Liberal bums" out of office...by voting Conservative.
  
  
• The Conservatives claim that the judiciary is "stacked" with Liberal appointees, and yet, by all accounts, these judges are independent, so what does that say about the sort of judiciary that their party would prefer? (Here's a hint: look south.)
  
  
• Enemies of the Conservative state: judges who put the Charter, in both letter and spirit, above ideology; worse, who use secular law to trump religious dogma.
  
  
• Stephen Harper insists that he won't re-open the abortion debate, saying that the issue was settled at his party's convention and that "I have a lot on my plate"; and yet, despite that full plate, and despite it having been legally settled by the courts and Parliament, he will re-open the same-sex marriage debate. (Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to hypocrisy at its finest.)
  
  
• During the course of the campaign, I've gone back to calling the Conservative leader "Herr Harper," except now I click my heels and stand at attention when I do it. (I still don't have the German accent down, though.)
  
  
• First, ask yourself how same-sex marriage has been bad for Canada; then, for fun, ask your Conservative candidate -- especially one in Ontario, where it's been legal the longest, since 2003 -- the same question. (We can't have all those gay tourists putting money into our economy, dammit!)
  
  
• The rights trade-off: they'll leave abortion alone, but you have to let them have their way with equal marriage. (Either way, someone's getting screwed -- but, hey, it's not you, so why would you care, right?)
  
  
• Complaining about how long the Liberals have been in power -- "Twelve long years..." -- when you ignored the electorate and forced an election we didn't want; when you put us through yet another nasty roller-coaster ride of a campaign, the second in as many years; when you caused us to be subjected to a record 56-day campaign, one spanning the entire holiday season (minus any the goodwill); when you...well, suffice it to say, that doesn't impress me at all.
  
  
• Stephen Harper assuaging people's fears by referring to the courts as part of his party's "checks and balances" is both disturbing and disingenuous; the latter for the simple fact that courts have already rendered legally binding decisions on same-sex marriage, therefore, to have his way, he's going to have to ignore them. (Him saying that of his social conservatism is like a wife-beater saying that of the restraining order against him.)
  
  
• Seeing how well Paul Martin's campaign has been run, I think my initial aphorism needs updating -- replacing the word "thief" with "idiot," for instance.
  
  
• Merriam-Webster defines fraud as the "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right"; given what will happen to same-sex marriage and other rights in this country, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are guilty as sin. (I also think that if they're going to bandy about the word "corruption," they should look themselves in the mirror; again, for the same reason.)
  
  
• Say what you will about George W. Bush, at least he's up front about his far-right-wing agenda.
  
  
• Stephen Harper: putting the "con" in "Conservative." (This campaign has been the biggest I've ever seen; too bad so many have fallen for it.)
  
  
• If I'm subjected to one more fucking election ad...

And, last but not least, some for January 23, which I have marked on my calendar as "doomsday" (if that's any indication of how I think things will go):

• Election day in Canada being a week after Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the U.S. seems somewhat appropriate; after all, King was the one who said, "When you are right, you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative."
  
  
• Is going from a prime minister who stands up for the Charter to one who only grudgingly acknowledges its existence -- but not its constraints -- the kind of change Canadians had in mind?
  
  
• People who are voting Conservative to teach the Liberals a lesson about corruption should remember that the Tories are going to teach all of us a lesson about our constitutionally "protected" civil liberties.
  
  
• Those who are voting for change should remember that there is such a thing as change for the bad (as social conservatives are wont to say about same-sex marriage).
  
  
• A prudent thought walking into the polling station would be to imagine four to five years of right-wing ideology being put ahead of all else.
  
  
• Ask yourselves: do you really think the Conservatives will stop at same-sex marriage? (When they see how easy it is to take it away, how far behind do you think, say, a woman's right to choose will be?)
  
  
• In case it's not already obvious, I'd rather gouge out my eyeballs with a rusty spoon than vote Conservative.
  
  
• After not voting Conservative, I'll be taking an unpaid sick day...because I'm sick of politicians -- all of them. (To quote Tool: "Fuck smiley glad-hands with hidden agendas.")
  
  
• I define the phrase "from bad to worse" as a Tory minority followed by Alberta-centric conservatives getting into bed with Quebec separatists. (If there's a majority, you can just substitute the phrase "nightmare scenario.")
  
  
• When Stephen Harper finally wins, will Alberta finally shut the hell up? (I mean, oil money and social conservatism? Ralph Klein is going to be in hog heaven!)

That jumbled mess is pretty much all I want to say about the election, other than to suggest visiting Egale Canada to find out how you can help stop these well-funded right-wingers from shamefully turning back the clock on equality in Canada. And here I was thinking that I lived in a socially progressive country. Sigh.