So, according to the Multnomah County lawyers in Portland, there is nothing in the Oregon law or Constitution to keep homosexual couples from getting married. Fine. One wonders, though, if it's true that the words "male" and "female" in the state law on marriage mean nothing, then what do other words in our laws mean?

It has always been true that words in constitutions and law books mean only whatever judges say they mean. Nothing illustrates this better than the sudden wave of interpreting marriage laws in a new way.

Forget the cliche about ours being a nation of laws. What's written in the books means zip if judges decide the laws no longer fit and should be interpreted differently.

The implication is that lawmaking doesn't matter much, and if that's true, then the democratic political process that results in lawmaking doesn't matter much either.

Every once in a while, political reformers try to encourage young people to start voting. The question somebody should ask is: Why? What's the point?

On some important issues, as we have seen in Oregon, voting hardly matters. Sometimes that's because the voters didn't follow the proper procedure, as when initiatives are struck down after the fact. Other times it's when judges decide that laws mean the opposite of what they say. (The best example of that, though not in connection with elections, is the federal Civil Rights Act, in which Congress banned preferences for any group. It wasn't long before preferences were established under another name, affirmative action.)

If words can be so easily twisted to make them conform to changing standards, it may not matter much on a subject such as marriage, which a lot of Americans take lightly anyway. But what about when words matter a lot, as in the protection of our liberties?

Many of us trust in the Bill of Rights to keep Americans free. That confidence is shaken from time to time. The current wave of inventiveness concerning the definition of marriage is such a time. (hh)