The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage

By the time the family law radicals are finished, there will be nothing left of marriage but the name. That is the theme of my column called, The Institution Formerly Known As Marriage. I analyze the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to figure out: a) what they think is the purpose of marriage and b) whether that purpose (or purposes) can survive their own analysis of "over-inclusion" and "under-inclusion." None of their purported purposes are essential purposes of marriage, that is these purposes can be acheived without marriage. None of their purported purposes are even public purposes, but in fact, are simply private purposes with a bit a special legal mumbo-jumbo attached.
Bottom line:

the Court has elevated the private, inessential purposes of marriage to the highest point in the hierarchy of values of marriage. Given this new understanding, neither the longevity of marriage, nor fidelity within marriage can remain as important values. By the time the opponents of conjugal marriage are finished with their redefinitions, marriage will be little more than a five-year renewable-term contract. The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage will be nothing but a couple of individuals, loosely stapled together by the state.

Please note my post from a few days ago: lawmakers in Germany and in Australia are now seriously talking about creating 7 year renewable term marriage contracts.
Ok, so I was off by 2 years. But this deconstruction of marriage steamroller is coming at us faster than you may think.