The US constitution is a tangle of grand Enlightenment ideals and messy post-monarchic politics. American history is, in some senses, the long and painful process of rescuing the ideals from the politics.

2 thoughts on “Interpretation

  1. I always go with the ‘Declaration of Independence Test.’ The DIT says, if it doesn’t work with the three unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration, then it is a bad law. Essentially, it is probably written to protect something less important than one of those rights, and probably tramples upon those rights.
    In this case, the DIT says that marriage is not the government’s business (outside saying both parties must consent and be of age. Consent includes of sound mind.) Anything less than that violates the ability of a person to pursue their happiness, and is untenable.

    Of course, going by this standard I find the vast majority of the law to be bad. I am in favor of a complete overhaul of the law required every 4 years, at the start of a presidential term. I think that requirements for simplicity, meeting that standard, and overall length (say, average high school grad can read in 2 weeks of 8 hour days maximum, and any new laws must stay within that boundary even if you must delete old laws) would be beneficial. We, as citizens, are responsible for knowing the law… but as it stands that is impossible. Especially given the language and reference tactics used.

    Then again, I think the religious objection is stupid. The greatest commandment in the bible is basically ‘Love each other as people.’ No, ‘Hey, love those that comply with this word.’ No ‘Hey, force everyone to live by this word.’ Just ‘Love each other.’ If churches actually followed that…

Comments are closed.