© 2008 by Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
“As I grow older and older, and totter toward the tomb, I find that I care less and less, who goes to bed with whom.” – Dorothy L. Sayers
The most obnoxious thing our government does is to make situations more rather than less ambiguous. A recent example of this is the California Supreme Court striking down that state’s same-sex marriage ban.
Without arguing the merits of the case other than agreeing with the above quote, we now have more ambiguity. Previously, the accepted definition of marriage was one man and one woman, both of the age of consent, both who willingly consent to be married, both of sound mind and not too closely related.
Even that definition has lots of ambiguity. As to being of sound mind, some people think to marry is to be out of your head. I will not argue that point, either.
The California Supreme Court did not define marriage. Again, do not argue same-sex marriage with me, in this column I am talking about getting rid of the ambiguity of our laws.
To end ambiguity in this issue we need a precise legislative definition of marriage. First, it must be specific about the parties: does it take two to marry or can one person marry himself? The California Court struck down that it must be one man and one woman, but we still must ask: Is marriage legally only between two people or can more than two marry? How many?
Likewise, can only humans marry? Could Roy Rogers and Dale Evans, along with being married to each other, marry Trigger and Buttermilk, their horses? And, how can Buttermilk divorce the other three if she feels improperly saddled?
But these are not all of the questions. What is the age and manner of consent? Are arranged marriages valid? We must know who can officiate the marriage and in what form the ceremony must be held. In short, what are the rules? Can a hotel bell captain perform a marriage? How must the marriage be legally transacted to be legal in all 50 states? Ultimately, what legal constraints does the society place on marriage? For a real-estate transaction to be valid it must be in the special form of a deed. Is there a special form for marriage?
Finally, how does the act of marriage change the rights and obligations of the citizens, their employers and the government? Congress must pass unambiguous laws laying out the description of marriage rather than just waiting for a judiciary ruling and then decrying judicial activism.
It’s not just about marriage
It is not just an issue with marriage; there are many other areas in our society. We have much ambiguity in our lives about immigration, taxes, education and voting rights, to name a few issues.
Speaking of taxes, the tax code is in the millions of pages. It is well established that if you call 100 IRS agents with a question about your taxes, you will get 100 widely different answers.
Likewise, our nation’s immigration laws depend on the interpretation by differing judiciaries. We have sanctuary cities and non-sanctuary cities. How can this be if we have a procedure for immigration and penalties for non-compliance? It is because the rules of immigration are political in nature and ambiguous.
One thing is certain: if football, basketball and baseball were as ambiguous about their rules, we would never be able to play a game. This politically intentional ambiguity paralyses our society needlessly.
I am offended that the judiciary, in effect, makes our laws. That was never its intended role. The judiciary does this because our legislative branch of government is too weak-kneed to pass unambiguous laws. In fact, the executive and legislative branches no longer really govern, only the judiciary. Maybe that is because the justices are appointed for life, whereas the executive and legislative branches must face re-election, so they have lost their nerve to govern. All they do is spend their time giving the money of one citizen to another citizen for the purpose of buying that citizen’s vote.
In the eight years of the Bush administration, like the previous
Time for a change
It is time to elect people who will govern and let the voices of the people be heard in the people’s branch of government, the Congress. Making congressional rules to keep things from being voted on only allows our government to abdicate its role, as the voice of the people, and should be dealt with by throwing those elected officials out of the government forever.
We need unambiguous laws made by leaders who clarify our laws. We need consistency in our laws and their interpretation. We cannot afford to have laws for only some people and not for others.
We are one nation, under God and we, by God, should start acting unambiguously like it.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.