Language is a potent weapon in the culture war.  In the quest to transform American culture one state at a time, last week the Iowa Supreme Court took it upon itself to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions.  From The Foundry, Morning Bell: Not Just a Stereotype:

This past Friday the Iowa Supreme Court rewrote the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Justifying their rejection of the argument that “the optimal environment for children is to be raised within a marriage of both a father and a mother,” Justice Mark Cady wrote(pdf):   “The research … suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”

The post goes on to link to research suggesting just the opposite, but never mind.  Dueling studies usually end up in a draw and is an issue for lawyers in this case.  What ordinary people have to look at is the results of this ruling.    Heritage’s Matthew Spaulding reveals the real intent behind the latest example of judicial activism:

What is happening is no minor adjustment, a slight change in degree that just extends benefits or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change in the essence of the institution. It does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose.

Expanding marriage supposedly to make it more inclusive, no matter what we call the new arrangement, necessarily ends marriage as we now know it by remaking the institution into something different: a mere contract between any two individuals.

I have no beef with gay people wanting a formal, legalized acknowledgment of their relationships.  It’s a natural human desire.  My problem with courts imposing legal solutions to social issues under the guise of social justice is that the Emperor has no clothes, or as a post on Gay Patriot points out, in reference to pushback against lefty gay political activists who demand court decisions:

Here’s why–gay advocates want to undermine the traditional understanding of marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship and change it to include multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy. They are not trying to be included in the tradition–they are trying to warp the tradition because they believe they are victimized by a cruel patriarchy who uses marriage as a tool of oppression.  Attempting to justify their inclusion in an established tradition would be contrary to their desire to destroy that tradition.  It’s that simple. Now you know why.

I’m not sure that it’s all about the oppressive patriarchy, but I agree with the underlying assumption.  If you change the meaning of a thing, it is no longer that thing, no matter how you dress it up.  The simple fact that it’s referred to as “same-sex marriage” proves the point.  Why put a descriptor in front of the concept, if the concept remains the same?  The answer, of course, is that it’s not the same.

The idea is to make people accept that same-sex marriage is simply a variation of marriage, a lefty twist on Shakespeare’s “A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet,” meaning that a rose is a rose no matter what you call it, or, in this case, marriage is what a court calls it.  That may work for the botanists out there, but this is about human beings and how they choose to live.

The Iowa Supreme Court is trying to do just that with their ruling, trying to dress gay marriage in the accessories of traditional ideas of marriage, and demanding that everyone go along with its deception.  I think this issue belongs to the citizens of each state, not its Supreme Courts.  And, gay marriage activists?  Honey catches more flies than vinegar.  Make your case for formalized relationships to people.  This stereotypical married person is open to that approach.  Trying to shove it down my throat via the courts just makes me want to close my mouth, and my mind.