Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyAugust 18th, 2010
Mario Almonte has an opinion piece on Huffington Post that takes my breath away. Oh, not in its brilliance, but in its astonishing lack of knowledge, factual accuracy, or logical conclusion. In fact, its mind-numbingly stupid.
Almonte argues that gay folks should just settle for civil unions and be happy. Okay, I understand the argument for civil unions (though I reject it). But Almonte seems to be under the impression that this astonishing revelation was his own epiphany and an amazing new idea which will just solve the problem.
In fact, he comes across as someone who woke up this morning and, for the very first time, considered the concept of same-sex marriage but didn’t let his lack of context, knowledge, or contemplation slow him down in sharing his new-found perspectives. Consider his opening sentence:
In the movement to legalize same-sex marriages in the United States, the religious right has proven a formidable and unwavering foe, and their victory in delaying the repeal of California’s Proposition 8 is persuasive evidence.
Really? Because I don’t know of any legal scholars – outside the wackadoodle variety – that think that the language of the Ninth Circuit’s stay is a victory for the religious right, much less persuasive evidence of their formidability. For heaven sake, man, it even questioned their ability to appeal.
Stupid? Kinda. But it really goes downhill from there. He looks over the past 30 years and sees the community as having “lost substantial ground” (hello?) and seems to honestly think that the religious right does not oppose civil unions (he seems never to have heard of Hawaii).
I can’t even begin to list all the ways in which Almonte fails. But I do recommend that you take a glance at this essay. It’s rare that you find something that is so far off the mark that it would be far easier to pick out the bits that are factually accurate, logically consistent, or historically aware than it would be to isolate those that are laughably wrong.
I suspect that Almonte sees himself as the wise benevolent counselor. But, Lordy this guy comes across as stupid.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Jim Burroway
August 18th, 2010
Almonte describes himself:
Public relations. That’s all you need to know. He’s approaching the marriage/civil unions issue not as the legitimate legal problem that it is, but as a rebranding opportunity.
Jason D
August 18th, 2010
This argument seems to keep popping up. Where were these folks 10-20 years ago when Civil Unions/DP was the hot topic and the same conservatives that now oppose were calling it “marriage lite” and saying “NO NO NO NO!”
If we had stopped there it would not stand to reason that CU/DP would’ve been more successful than fighting for full marriage is now.
In fact, it’s only because we pressed for the real deal that at least some of them are saying “what was that Civil Union thing again? Let’s do that instead”
If we had never made the leap to demanding full equality, the name and everything then there’s no reason to believe the same change of heart would’ve happened.
If we suddenly gave up and backpedalled to CU/DP guess what we’ll get? Nothing. Their resolve is slowly weakening, we need to maintain ours. If we step back, they will move forward. We will lose everything. It’s a weak maneuver that would undermine our protestations that we are fighting for our civil rights. Did any other minority compromise on basic equality?
Christopher Waldrop
August 18th, 2010
This argument seems to spring from the claim made by social conservatives that marriage is being “redefined”. I know some who think that the solution to that is to accept civil unions for same-sex couples and leave the term “marriage” for heterosexual couples.
I’d be content with civil unions, but only if “civil unions” are available to every couple, regardless of gender, and only if all civil unions, regardless of the gender(s) of the individuals, are considered equal.
In other words, replace the word “marriage” as a legal term with “civil union”. And if a same-sex couple wants to say they’re married, well, no one can stop ’em, nor should it be anyone else’s business to try and do so.
Ray
August 18th, 2010
Civil unions not a problem? Check with the governor of Hawaii.
Ryan
August 18th, 2010
Amazing. He reminds me of that PR Iraqi man in Baghdad during the beginning of the war who kept claiming Saddam and his men would prevail, even as the US troops had him surrounded. The whopper about the religious right making it “perfectly clear” that they have no problem with legal recognition of gay couples under a different name was the best part. He even quoted a few religious leaders…who said no such thing! And the worst part is, you just know he considers himself a good gay-friendly liberal.
werdna
August 18th, 2010
That would be “Stupidest argument against marriage”.
Burr
August 18th, 2010
Agreed. It’s the steadfast determination for marriage equality that has driven support for any rights at all forward.
That said it’d be nice to see more states that aren’t there yet on the polls for marriage jump on the civil union option. I don’t see why we can’t have several more states offering that unless there’s a lot of first class a-holes like Lingle in veto positions out there.
occono
August 18th, 2010
Or the fact that most of the State DOMAs ban Civil Unions too. Or when Minnesota enacted limited DPs, they got challenged in court, but upheld. (Likely based on the fact that the campaign for the Amendment, as I’ve been told, specifically said the Amendment wouldn’t rule out such limited benefits…)
(I know far too much minutiae about this, given I’m not American. Guess I could call it a hobby…)
Timothy Kincaid
August 18th, 2010
werdna, thanks.
Now don’t I feel stupid… but not quite as stupid as Almonte’s essay.
Jason D
August 18th, 2010
Werdna, perhaps Timothy is making the point that Almonte is a follower of Stupid.
:P
AdrianT
August 18th, 2010
Oh goodness, the huffington post – that ridiculous site that pushes nonsense like homeopathy. that says it all.
werdna
August 18th, 2010
@Jason D-
I had the same thought, and if Timothy hadn’t put “maybe ever” at the end of the headline that interpretation might’ve worked. I do like the idea of people being “stupidists”, and Almonte would certainly qualify.
David Foreman
August 18th, 2010
Here’s the “Footnote” from an upcoming blog post I’m working on:
I will say, even if you do believe the Bible is anti-gay (which I do not), that is no reason to oppose gay marriage. In the USA, you don’t have to be a Christian to get married. You don’t have to go to a church to get married. You don’t have to believe in God to get married. Therefore, in this country, marriage is an act of the state. It is a legal contract. That may seem harsh, but, honestly, in the United States, marriage is not a religious right. It is a social institution. Just from a legal perspective, there is no reason to deny gay couples that legal avenue. Plus, since the divorce rate among evangelicals is as high or higher than the rest of the country, any talk from them about the sanctity of marriage is empty rhetoric, and laughably hypocritical.
Jim
August 18th, 2010
Add to Hawaii, the state of Wisconsin. An anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment was passed in 2006. Last year, the legislature passed a domestic partnership law, signed by the gov. “Wisconsin Family Action,” the bigots, challenged domestic partnerships before the WI supreme court, saying it violated the 2006 amendment. They lost, but today filed another challenge to domestic partnerships. The hateful Julaine Appling who leads the group was all over the TV and radio in 06 saying the amendment would not outlaw domestic partnerships. She proved herself a liar last year, and just won’t quit. She’s the one who told the gay community that we should be grateful we’re allowed to live “wherever we want.” Special rights, indeed. The point is, we’re either judged by the courts to be fully equal, or we are forever assigned second class citizenship. Ten years ago, I couldn’t have cared less about marriage. But the more I hear the arguments against it, the more I’m convinced they are based solely in hate. And we have to speak out for complete equality.
Donny D.
August 19th, 2010
At some points in the article it looks as though Almonte might actually support “the church’s” opposition to gay marriage.
Jerry
August 19th, 2010
Just TODAY, a lawsuit was filed in Wisconsin, by the very people that Almonte claims would support non-marriage options, asking the State Supreme Court to declare the state’s Domestic Partner Registry UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
So much for Almonte’s claim!
Eric in Oakland
August 19th, 2010
Why does he keep referring to the “gay marriage movement” as starting 40 years ago? Does he really think the Stonewall riot was about marriage equality?!
Tommy
August 19th, 2010
Well in the 1950’s marriage equality was one of the goals being fought for,but it fell off the table by the 1960’s.
ElmoBuzz
August 19th, 2010
How about we just have either civil marriage and religious marriage or civil marriage and mixed-sex marriage.
Let people choose which one they want, but they’re all the same except for what you wish to call it and whether you wish to have some religious organization “recognize.”
Paul in Canada
August 20th, 2010
Having recently spent 2 weeks with our 2 and 5 year old granddaughters, a constant reminder to ‘share’ connected for me what is fundamentally wrong in the current culture wars between the religious-right and civil society.
Christians, those… who profess to follow the teachings and life of Jesus, have become self-serving, arrogant ‘moralists’ with a (un)healthy dose of self-entitlement. Based on the misperceived concept that they, and only they, hold the key to moral virtue, they’ve perverted the very heart of Christianity – the golden rule – to love as Christ loved us – unconditionally, humbly and sacraficially. At the heart of this is the desire to put others above oneself. To embrace others and ensure they share in all that is good and fair.
Excluding others from enjoying the benefits of marriage, freedom of worship or access to all that our society offers is, well, unchristian, uncivil and just plain selfish!
Leave A Comment