In some of his more lucid moments, Rush Limbaugh has been known to say “Words mean things.” Of course, he makes such calls for precision when they serve his ends, but that simple phrase has the ring of truth about it.

Words mean things.

I bring this up because if we don’t agree on what we mean, or worse, just throw a word out with fuzzy definition, we’re just asking for trouble when somebody goes and makes laws and public policy with it.

Take “war.” Used to be we all understood a fairly precise meaning for the word. Then, in the 1960s, we had a War on Poverty. Fortunately, we were all smart enough to realize this was metaphorical – no one expected bombing runs on poor neighborhoods. Then, in the 1970s, during and after the oil embargo there were “price wars” between gas stations. Again, metaphorical, as inflated gas prices were deflated in local skirmishes, but this involved active conflict and thus touched upon war’s true definition. Then in the 1980s, we had the War on Drugs, which is still with us. Mostly a metaphor, but it involves actual armed people, and folks getting shot and imprisoned.

Today, we have the War on Terror. Few did a double-take when that was announced, as by this point the definition of the word “war” was so vague that we could actually deploy our armed forces, shooting and being shot at, in the name of a metaphor.

No matter how well-intentioned the use, words will change or even lose meanings when you apply them differently. For instance, the name “Homer” had been used ironically so many times that the irony was lost and it was already code for “imbecile” when applied to Homer J. Simpson.

This linguistic struggle has hit home in the movement in recent years for “definition of ‘marriage.’” Fine that everyone wants to take an active interest in our language, but the problem comes when people clamor for a “traditional” definition.

When I consider what traditions we have had, not just in America but throughout humanity, one definition of marriage becomes clear: Marriage is a means of securing property (with the wife typically being part of that property). Child-rearing is part of it, but the end goal is to maintain inheritance and keep assets secure enough so that the young’uns can take care of the elders in their declining years. Sexual fidelity is optional for men, but since additional bastards can jeopardize property control, not so much for women.

But then something happened. In the 20th century women gained some rights and demanded more. Advances in birth control and looser attitudes towards abortion meant less chance of bastards dueling sons for the estate, so women experienced sexual liberation as well. By the year 2000, marriage was understood to be a partnership of equals.

In other words, part of the reason for panic over gays supposedly redefining marriage is that straight couples already did! Under the old system, there was no gay marriage, as one of the partners would have to submit to being the virtual slave of the other, and no one wants to permanently give up one’s freedom. Now, with equality, we straights only have ourselves to blame for making the institution attractive to same-sex couples.

I’d hope that more people would realize this, but it’s more likely that the Homers in government and media will instead consider all this a War on Marriage.