Originalists and the Constitution

As an attorney (perhaps the most hated profession, although not the oldest one) , I listen to the Tea Party crowd and Justice Scalia and the belief that somehow, the constitution is set in stone and must be read a certain way.

But the question never gets posed to the same people - what about the Bible?

Do we read the Bible the same way it was read 300 years ago? Or even 50 years ago? Doesn't our interpretation evolve as we evolve?

Wasn't the Bible quoted as evidence against inter-racial marriage, just as today it is quoted to fight gay marriage?

If we took the Bible literally, we would still have animal sacrifice, polygamy, brothers marrying their deceased brother's wives, slavery, women (and children) as chattel, various punishments, and so many more requirements that we no longer follow.

Many years ago, I wrote a paper wherein I described the Declaration of Independence as a biblical document in terms of the book of revelations, i.e. because it describes Britain and King George as the Anti-Christ and in order corresponding terms and descriptions.

No less then, is the Constitution set forth as a moral code, describing how we are to interact and how we are to treat one-another, particularly in our relationship with our government, its relationship with us, and with other governments (states and foreign entities).

I strongly believe, that our founding fathers had no intention of mixing government and religion, because they knew the pitfalls of such an endeavor. One only has to look at Europe and Henry VIII of England and other monarchs before and after him to know how each used the claims of Divine Right to perpetrate horrible acts against their own peoples and peoples of other countries, be it an inquisition (in Spain), or to demand an annulment to marry a mistress, we are all only human, not Divine. Thus, I am always appalled at anyone who claims a Divine right to run for office, or to engage in bad conduct, as if it excuses their behavior and their cloudy (at best) judgment.

If we are truly reading the constitution in its original form, there is no question about the separation between church and state, the limits of the power of the government over its people, and an intended right to privacy and freedom from search and seizure and government intrusion into our lives, be it our doctors offices, our bedrooms, and our choices of who we marry.

I likewise do not understand Libertarians who take the originalist view and cry out over government overreaching, but think it is acceptable for the government to regulate our conversations with our doctors, and who we choose to marry. It is rather hypocritical to me, but no one seems to see it and call out those who espouse these views. Maybe it is time.