Self-described Catholic blogger Brandon Vogt recently published Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage. He tries to disprove 10 common same-sex-marriage arguments, but merely highlights the most common mistakes of his own camp. I’m addressing each of his 10 points in separate posts as a kind of back-to-basics review of our opposition.
I’d planned to write on Vogt’s point 8 (about bigotry and homophobia) but I’ll leave that for last. Instead, let’s look at Vogt’s #9, his rebuttal of:
9. The struggle for same-sex marriage is just like the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
He’s stacking the language by saying “just like.” Nothing is “just like” anything else. India’s independence movement, the suffragette movement, black civil rights, women’s equality, gay equality — all of these are civil rights movements, all of them part of a greater, international, cross-generational civil rights movement, but none of them are “just like” each other.
Phrasing it this way, though, makes it easy for him to focus on their differences rather than their commonality:
The suggestion here is that sex is similar to race, and therefore denying marriage for either reason is wrong. The problem, however, is that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are significantly different.
For instance, nothing prevents interracial couples from fulfilling the basic essence of marriage — a public, lifelong relationship ordered toward procreation. Because of this, the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1960s were wrong to discriminate against interracial couples. Yet same-sex couples are not biologically ordered toward procreation and, therefore, cannot fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.
Too — many — mistakes! Let’s sort this out.
First, Vogt has never established that the “basic essence of marriage” is procreation. He keeps saying it, but never proves it. Marriage vows rarely mention it, focusing instead on the commitment between two adults to build a life together. This commitment is clearly a better candidate for marriage’s “basic essence” than procreation. A marriage without that commitment is a broken marriage. A marriage without children? Still a marriage.
Then there’s this bit of nonsense:
Yet same-sex couples are not biologically ordered toward procreation and, therefore, cannot fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.
Surely he’s not saying that if you cannot procreate then you cannot fulfill the basic requirement of marriage (again: whose basic requirement?). But then that leaves him trying to convince us that procreation is not a requirement, but having the parts to procreate is — even if those parts don’t work anymore, or never did. Why? Because…because…because…the parts!
Then again, this is the same man who said we let infertile and elderly couples marry because “it’s not worth the effort to restrict them,” so who knows what kind of nonsense he’s saying.
Vogt opposes discriminating against interracial couples: they can procreate, and procreation is the purpose of marriage. But he’s only a few generations from judges who believed that purebred procreation was the purpose of marriage. Read this from the trial judge in Loving v Virginia, the court case that (eventually) declared banning interracial marriage unconstitutional:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Wow — epiphany! The judge justified banning interracial marriage by invoking society’s interest in responsible procreation — just like Vogt and his allies who want to ban same-sex marriage.
That might be worth repeating.
The judge justified banning interracial marriage by invoking society’s interest in responsible procreation – just like Vogt and his allies who want to ban same-sex marriage.
Vogt would surely disagree with the judge over what “responsible” means, but they’re both working from the same error: that society’s stake in marriage is entirely about procreation and not at all about what it brings to the adults getting married — a theory so strange even our opponents don’t really believe it.
Maybe Vogt knows his case is weak, because he suddenly veers in a new direction:
It’s important to note that African-Americans, who have the most poignant memories of marital discrimination, generally disagree that preventing interracial marriage is like banning same-sex marriage. For example, when Californians voted on Proposition 8, a state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor.
Once again, so many things wrong here.
First, the 70% figure is likely wrong. It was based on one exit poll (remember those, President Kerry?). Subsequent analysis showed it’s almost certainly wrong. But Vogt presents it as fact.
Second, any figure from 2008 is surely outdated. A recent poll from ABC News shows that African-American opposition to same-sex marriage is down to 51%. If it was at 70% in 2008, then that position is crumbling fast. This is partly due to the many African-American civil rights leaders coming out in support of marriage equality — including Coretta Scott King, Julian Bond, and John Lewis.
Vogt really ought to know these things.
Then there’s this: I’m not African-American and I can’t present myself as an authority on the black civil rights struggle. Everything I know about what it means to be African-American is second-hand at best. Likewise, no straight person (of any race) can speak first-hand of what it means to be gay in America. When they try, we often end up empty rhymes like, “They’re equating their sin with my skin.” It difficult to say whether one struggle is “just like” another when you’ve only lived one of them.
I can say that some civil rights activists who are both gay and African American do see the parallels. For example, Vogt might want to learn a bit more about Bayard Rustin, the gay man who introduced Ghandi’s philosophy of non-violence to Martin Luther King and who organized the great 1963 civil rights March on Washington.
But I can’t say even that matters, because the most basic problem with Vogt’s 70% argument is that it’s not an argument at all, just an appeal to authority — in this case, public opinion, a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. That’s odd coming from a self-defined Catholic writer, a man who doesn’t think matters of right and wrong are determined by popular vote. If a moral proposition is true, it’s true whether everyone agrees with it or none of us do. Tossing out a 70% figure is just a lazy substitute for creating a moral argument.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: Vogt has to realize we do the civil rights struggle an injustice if we think of it only in terms of race — or gender, or caste, or romantic orientation. Its victories inspire us precisely because they transcend those categories and reveal a human struggle — we see oppressed and falsely-maligned people stand up with courage and demand full recognition of their humanity, both in the culture and in the law. The civil rights movement of the 1960s can inspire all of humanity, and that humanity includes us.
Next: “Same-sex marriage is inevitable, so we should stand on the right side of history.”
“It difficult to say whether one struggle is “just like” another when you’ve only lived one of them.”
And even MORE difficult when you haven’t lived either of them…
And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.
And but for the “interference with his arrangement”, there’d be no white judges in America passing judgment on interracial marriage!
So Much Stupid, So Little Time (to comment on all of it).
I agree, that no human rights struggle is ever “just like” the one before—and for one particular reason (you didn’t mention): as is right and proper, every human rights struggle is ANGRIER than the one before. It’s like, “We’ve already struggled for x, y, z, p, and q but we STILL have to raise holy hell re n? Why aren’t we EQUAL already????” [The USA hasn't even BEGUN to see the fight for Trans equality yet, and the ANGER that one will unleash will melt concrete!]
OMG Rob… I just saw a clip from that Catholic blogger about the Boy Scouts controversy. You have to see this!
This is the typical “Fox News-fair and balanced!”
http://brandonvogt.com/boyscouts/#disqus_thread
This is like saying my wound hurts more than yours….my pain is more painful than yours…blah blah blah….at the end of the day WE (LGBT communty) have suffered long and hard and we are not comparing our struggle to that of the African American community, yet we reference it and show similarities in how we are treated, discounted, discriminated against, and shunned by society on so many levels. Those in the African American community that have done their ”homework” know how we (gays) stood beside them…march along side them and fought for their liberty, justice and equality. So to whomever wants to keep “stirring the pot” of animosity…I say this. WE WILL PREVAIL……WE ARE STRONG….WE ARE RESILIENT…..WE WILL BE FREE!!!
Rob, I hate to say it, but didn’t you commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy yourself when you wrote,
“Marriage vows rarely mention it, focusing instead on the commitment between two adults to build a life together. This commitment is clearly a better candidate for marriage’s “basic essence” than procreation. ”
Maybe not, since we probably both believe that the essence of marriage isn’t absolute and does depend to an extent on the general view. The following sentences are more on target though.
Also, your last paragraph is just incredible and spot-on. Vogt can try to rebut the point about civil rights all he wants, but he can’t take away the common essence of all civil rights movements.
Rob, how many ways I can love you. I cannot count.
However, I am the third generation of a family that HAS been advocates and socially engaged in expanding justice for decades.
I’m a black woman. A lot has been at stake when it comes to empathy. And just as I’ve seen ignorant heteros bald face lecture AT gay people about being gay, I’ve also witnessed the same saying what NO ONE has said.
Their typical form of false reporting and misrepresenting what most equality activists have said and done.
No matter how much you reiterate over and over you’re NOT comparing color with sexual orientation, they repeat it over and over that you did.
I have and will emphasize that gay people as a minority have been abused, maligned and misrepresented for their ONE distinguishing feature. Just as people of color or women or Jews have been treated unjustly for THEIR distinctions.
And these have been the only means by which TO identify that person. Not by their abilities, contributions or responsibility.
That is what gay people have in common with the others, but none of us has said so that inaccurately.
But the same people that claim we make these comparisons, are the same people quick to compare gay people to any of society’s reprobate and anti social class.
So much for what their offense at what THEY think inaccurate or unfair comparisons are all about.
Spunky, I can see your point but I think I’m trying to do something else here. The key thing is that Vogt never proves that procreation is the basic purpose of marriage. He simply treats it as self-evident and obvious, something he need not prove because it’s so evident to all of us. But is it? Can we check that empirically? I say we can, by looking at marriage vows in which people declare what marriage means to them, and these vows indicate the Vogt’s view is not self-evident and accepted by all. Therefore he has huge gaps in his reasoning.
My statement is based on something else, too, though I didn’t explore it here: The idea of that purpose of something does not lie embedded in the thing, but in the people who use the thing. In other words, things don’t have a purpose; rather, people have a purpose for things. And the only way to determine those purposes is to check with the people. I explore that here.
Here’s an example. If you want to know the purposes of a gun, you need ask people who use the gun, and you’ll get many answers: hunting, self-defense, murder (for a sick few), and others.
But if I’m going to ask a question: Which purpose for a gun is more moral, self-defense or murder, then I’m going to come to my own conclusion regardless of what other people think.
Different kinds of question, therefore different approaches to answering them. I’ll have to think about this more, though. Thanks for the provocative question!
Rob,
Thanks for eloquently explaining what I was stumbling through. You made the same point that John Corvino made in his book with Maggie Gallagher, namely, that marriage is not well-defined, and therefore doesn’t have a single purpose or essence. You reference it again here, and especially here in your response to Robert George et al.
And just to be clear, there is an inherent difference between what you and Vogt are dong. As you pointed out, Vogt must at the very least explain his view that the essence of marriage is procreation (I’d argue he also needs to argue that such a concept is legitimate in the first place). It’s pretty easy for him to make his points when he assumes a conclusion that excludes gay couples–he needs to explain how he got there.
Thanks again for the reply.
Rob,
You are so much more eloquent and cerebral than I, who reacts emotionally to the Catholic Church, as witnessed by my take on the Cathoic Church’s take on my marriage and family: I am divorced and remarried (Invalid!). I had infertility (Invalid!) We had our children by IVF (Invalid!). So your lovely nieces have no right to existence? Ten or twelve years ago I did research on the Bishop’s directives for health care workers, and it was amazing to find convoluted essays on why a woman with a tubal pregnancy should be treated. It was actually difficult for the authers to write straight-forward justification for treatment that coincided with the teachings of the church! You know, because the sinple statement of “treat the ectopic pregnancy and the embyo dies but the mother lives, but fail to treat the ectopic pregnancy and both embyo and mother die” was just not adequate. If they can’t see the ludicrousness of themselves on these issues, will they ever on the gay marriage issue? Of course, I have unsubstantiated theories on many things, so perhaps everything I write sould be taken with a grain of salt also.
Karen