Judgment No. CCZ 12/2015 43 Const. Application No. 79/14 symbols by which ideas or thoughts are conveyed. Meaning is the totality of what the words signify. As JUSTICE HOLMES of the Supreme Court of the United States of America said in Towne & Eisner 245 US 418(1918) at p 425 “a word is ... the skin of the living thought”. The respondents did not interpret the provisions of s 78(1) of the Constitution to determine its meaning because, had they done so they would have realised the absurdity of concluding that a family is not founded on marriage. They would also have realised the absurdity of concluding that persons who have attained eighteen years have a right to found a family but no right to marry. The absurdity would manifest itself in that their contention would mean that whilst persons under eighteen years would, according to them, have the right to marry they would not have the right to found a family. Section 46(1)(a) of the Constitution obliges a court when interpreting a provision contained in Chapter 4 to give full effect to the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Chapter. The court is required by s 46(1)(d) to pay due regard to all the provisions of the Constitution, in particular, the principles and objectives set out in Chapter 2. The purpose of interpreting a provision contained in Chapter 4 must be to promote the values and principles that underlie a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom, and in particular, the values and principles set out in s 3 of the Constitution. If the literal interpretation were applicable to the determination of the meaning of s 78(1) of the Constitution, its application would not give the fundamental right guaranteed and protected under s 78(1) the full measure of protection it deserves. The interpretation would fail to take into account the fact that the nature and scope of the content of the right to found a