Edmund Burke would not have been impressed with Mayor Jerry Sanders' teary-eyed explanation for signing a San Diego City Council amicus brief in support of gay marriage. Individual feelings and clever slogans, the philosophical Brit would have emphasized, do not constitute a compelling case for overturning enduring institutions whose wisdom often become apparent after they've been rashly abandoned.

Nor does Sanders' action reflect a decent respect of the opinions of county voters whose views on the subject of gay marriage in the year 2000 had to be truly overwhelming to boost a 55-44 percent citywide margin in favor of Proposition 22 into a 62-38 percent landslide throughout the county. It's fair to say that at least two-thirds of North County voters put themselves on the opposite side of Sanders' personal feelings with respect to an issue whose implications extend far beyond municipal borders.

As Burke notes, however, revolutionary "reason" isn't inclined to heed voices other than its own and is quick to vilify those who fail to echo its du jour version of "liberty, equality, and fraternity." One reason for disregarding such opinions is that the job of defending inherited institutions is a daunting intellectual task, since causes and effects are often subtly interconnected and hard to see. This is especially true if individuals are inclined to place their personal feelings ahead of traditions that have served well for centuries, or even for millennia.

In the case of marriage, folks who aren't impressed with a child's need to have both a male and a female parent aren't likely to be swayed by popular votes - or by studies that imply what common sense would suggest, that the sexual activity of parents affects their children. Nor will ideologues who equate male-female marriage laws with racial segregation be persuaded by evidence showing that gay marriage has accompanied the near death of marriage in Scandinavian countries.

One can point out that gay sexual relationships are fundamentally different from male-female relationships because they have absolutely no procreative and familial significance. But for folks whose thoughts extend no further than their feelings, that fact makes no difference.

Only decades later will it be seen that gay marriage further undermines the crucial links between marriage, sexual responsibility and child raising. Only after the fact will the psychological and social chaos wrought by presenting second-graders with books titled "King and King," under the guidance of PC mentors, become obvious. (In this illustrated fairy tale, two princes marry, kiss and live happily ever after - apparently to the satisfaction of the Democratic candidates for president who commented favorably on this pedagogical "reform.")

Only after the interconnected threads of tradition have been severed will it become obvious to eyes-closed-tight ideologues that sexuality extends beyond the reaches of biology.

What one won't hear from these individuals, whose feelings and ideology blind them to the damage they're doing, are teary-eyed apologies directed toward the presumed-to-be-dimwitted county voters whose notions of propriety would prevent the needless suffering of countless young victims who'll flail about in fatherless homes and sexual confusion.

- Oceanside resident Richard Kirk is a freelance columnist for the North County Times. Contact him at kirkrg@netzero.com.