[Erin] No, it's not the "ick factor"

When I first read this Atlanta Journal-Constitution piece by Terry Garlock, provocatively titled Conservatives wrong to fight gay marriage , I thought I might want to fisk it; but a second reading has led to the sad realization that fisking's too good for it. A decent fisk challenges the original writer's thoughts and ideas point by point, but Garlock's essay is all emotion; it's all about feelings, wrapped in a cellophane layer of brightly-colored sentiment and nestled in a basket of irrational fluff. Fisking something like this is akin to removing the ears of a chocolate marshmallow Easter bunny with a flamethrower: pointless.

For example, Garlock writes:

Personally, I am repulsed by public displays of romantic affection between two men, or two women. Those who would call me names like homophobe, as if I fear homosexuality, diminish themselves in my eyes. It's just that same-sex pairs are instinctively unnatural to me. The mental image of a wedding ceremony joining two men who seal the bargain with a deep kiss makes me squirm.

But here's where I think my fellow conservatives have it wrong.

That wedding ceremony wouldn't be about me or my personal discomfort. It would be about those two people who love each other and decided to publicly announce their permanent mutual commitment. Should my personal attitudes prevent them from doing that? Should my religious beliefs keep them legally unrelated even if they remain committed to each other for life?

[The answer to that rhetorical question is, "Yes." If your religious beliefs on the subject of gay marriage are properly formed by reason, history, an appreciation for civilization and the importance of the family, and the complete impossibility for man to change in its essence a reality which pre-dates our country and its laws and which speaks to the intrinsic dignity not only of the human individual but of the family--then yes.]

Garlock goes on:

I appreciate strong religious beliefs against same-sex marriage, and a church has every right to prohibit the practice for its members. Marriage is a legal status to which we are free to choose to add religious covenants, but those religious covenants should not govern the legal status of marriage, especially since we are free to choose our religion and even free to reject religion entirely. We shouldn't codify religious beliefs into law.

Well, then, many of our laws prohibiting incest should go right out the window, as should our laws prohibiting euthanasia, underage drinking, age of consent for sexual activity, use of "illegal" drugs, polygamy, illegal immigration, and tons of other things. The notion that the word "marriage" means the specific union of a man and a woman is no more "religious" than our prohibitions against these so-called crimes. None of them ought to remain illegal if our only criteria for what should be illegal is whether bystanders get hurt in some immediate, tangible way.

Garlock, again:

I've given this a lot of thought, and I think my prior stand against same-sex marriage was based on my personal thoughts about homosexuality rather than individual liberty. Those are two separate issues. My uneasiness may never go away, no matter how many names the enlightened ones call me, but the freedom of same-sex couples does not depend on my endorsement of their lifestyle.

I'm not going to doubt Garlock's word: if he says that his opposition to gay marriage was mentally similar to some playground bully's actions toward the two boys skipping rope together or the two girls sneaking off to smooch behind the sports equipment shed, I'll take him at his word.

But I'll also say: Speak for yourself.

I don't know a single thoughtful conservative who opposes gay marriage based on feelings or what's sometimes called the "ick factor," though I'm aware that's a popular notion on the other side of the debate. In fact, I've had comment box discussions with gay marriage supporters who tell me that if I'd just get to know some gay people...

But as I've said on those occasions, I have known, and do know, gay people. I even have gay relatives, and my self-imposed rule not to talk about family members without their permission and consent ties my hands more than I can say. Suffice it to say that on my side of things, invitations have been extended and communication lines left open.

So it's not (for me, anyway) a matter of discomfort with the idea of homosexual attraction or homosexual behavior that makes me oppose gay marriage; it's the belief that we're venturing into truly uncharted territory, dismantling the whole idea of the family and replacing it with something that is philosophically and morally very, very different--and that it is rather blithely assumed that this will not matter, that children will suffer no deficiencies as a result of being raised by two men or two women, with the underlying belief that after all mothers and fathers are interchangeable and equally unimportant in a child's life (so long as someone's teaching the kids all about the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child, that is).

And we have no idea how any of this will play out. We have no idea if we are damaging children by telling them that Heather has two mommies or that a handsome prince wants to marry another handsome prince. We have no clue if this total nuclear annihilation of the traditional concept of the family will have any negative effects on the smallest and most vulnerable of our citizens. We don't know to what extent religious rights will be curtailed, or other freedoms removed from those who continue to oppose gay marriage once it's a fait accompli. We aren't even asking the questions, because, I think, we'd rather not raise the possibility that gay marriage won't be an endless source of sunshine and flowers for America.

My opposition to gay marriage is like that of Maggie Gallagher, who wrote this piece four years ago. None of these objections have changed; few of them have even been addressed by the supporters of gay marriage. Instead, all opposition is assumed to be one of the following things: religious bias, "ick factor" bias, political bias, or plain old-fashioned bigotry. In addition, those who support gay marriage point to countries that have already legalized it as "proof" that no problems will result--but in terms of human history, gay marriage "happened" about five seconds ago. Heck, we're still arguing about whether day care is bad for kids, and day car hasn't involved the colossal societal shift that will be imposed upon us in the wake of gay marriage.

Terry Garlock may think that all conservatives are just squeamish about gays, but that's a pretty big assumption. Some, if not many, of us are much more worried about the effects of gay marriage on children, society, and the future of civilization; the only "ick factor" in my head right now has to do with Ellen's ring choice for Portia (pink diamonds? You have got to be kidding me).