The Founding Fathers Weren’t Gods
Tweet
Rep. Lamar Smith (R – of course) makes this silly argument against gay marriage: “No one can seriously believe that the constitution’s authors intended to create a right to same-sex marriage.”
That’s probably true.
The majority of the Constitution’s authors also probably didn’t believe that non-whites and/or non-landowners had a right to vote or were human beings either. But we didn’t let that constrain American progress, did we?
The Constitution is easily the greatest legal document in world history, but it was not handed down by the Lord Almighty on stone tablets.
(The painting above is not satire, but in fact a seriously intended painting from a conservative. We are doomed.)
46 Responses to “The Founding Fathers Weren’t Gods”
Journalist Marie Colvin Killed In Syria
Obama To Congress: Drop Corporate Tax Rate By 7%
Meet Rebecca Williams, The FBI’s Stripper Turned “Trailer Park Mata Hari”
VA Gov. McDonnell Backs Off Support Of Forced Vaginal Probe Law
Santorum A Birther? Got Briefing From Conspiracy Sheriff Arpaio
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Adds $26 Billion To Fortune Under Obama, Complains Of Socialism
Kardashian – Endorsed QuickTrim Diet Pill May Face Class Action Lawsuit
Virginia Still Within Reach For Obama
Porn Displayed On Best Buy TVs Via Wifi
Latest Entries
VIDEO: Who Doesn’t Need A Gun That Can Take Out A Helicopter?
The Tea Party Loves Socialism, Fakes Otherwise
Conservatives Dead Set On Repeating 2004
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I prefer this version.
“The Forgotten Man”
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379
This is better than Piss Christ how?
Too late.
In the Capitol itself is a painting called The Apotheosis of Washington, in which the Father of Our Country is depicted being elevated to the status of a god, while surrounded by other Christian deities including Ceres, Minerva, Neptune, Mercury and Vulcan.
Ben Franklin was similarly honored by N.C. Wyeth.
How many out of wedlock children did Benjamin Franklin have?
Or affairs?
How many out of wedlock children did Benjamin Franklin have?
He’s a “Founding Rather.” There must be a few rights that go with the status.
Ben’s illegitimate son William became governor of New Jersey.
“The majority of the Constitution’s authors also probably didn’t believe that non-whites and/or non-landowners had a right to vote or were human beings either. But we didn’t let that constrain American progress, did we?”
If marriage is just a “right” to you loons, than why stop with teh gheys? Surely, polygamists, those who wish to marry species and couples of various ages deserve your support as well, don’t they? Or since most Americans support civil unions than “gay marriage” is it really about a word (i.e. your contempt for Christianity)?
But William became a Tory. In England. Proof that illegitimate children are treasonous bastards. Yes they are.
Grey Ghost, if you want to marry your cat I wouldn’t want to stand in your way. But unfortunately, since cats can’t enter into valid contracts I have to stand against your attempts to sanctify your bond.
I like how Jesus towers over Washington and Lincoln.
Hey, there’s two black faces in that painting. Awesome! Who are the people in the bottom right side of the painting supposed to represent? One figure looks like a judge with his head in his hands, and right next to him looks like Dick Cheney on a cell phone having an angry call. Must be talking to tech support.
GreyGhost, you’ve engaged in the classic fallacy called the slippery slope argument. Spin the wheel, try again.
I say let Mormons have 4 wives if they want. Who cares? They do it anyhow, legal or not. If you can find 4 dumb broads that don’t mind ‘sharing’ one cock, then more power to you.
If marriage is just a “right” to you loons, than why stop with teh gheys? Surely, polygamists, those who wish to marry species and couples of various ages deserve your support as well, don’t they?
If the parties involved consent to such arrangements, who could possibly care except some panty-sniffing pervert?
Animals and juveniles cannot legally agree to binding contracts such as marriage, so we don’t have to worry about that, do we?
Have you noticed that laws against polygamy are indifferently enforced in some of our most conservative states? Wuzzupwidat?
If marriage is just a “right” to you loons, than why stop with teh gheys? Surely, polygamists, those who wish to marry species and couples of various ages deserve your support as well, don’t they?
You’re a bigoted asshole.
The most despicable and disgusting comparisons in this debate is those relating gay marriage to inter-species marriage. “Couples of various ages”? Do you mean children? Fuck you, Ghost. A comparison between two adult individuals who wish to be married to people who want to marry goats or pre-pubescent children is absolutely vile and way, waaaay off-base.
Polygamy I don’t have a problem with in theory, though in practice it would probably difficult to implement.
Or since most Americans support civil unions than “gay marriage” is it really about a word (i.e. your contempt for Christianity)?
This phrase rings a bell: “Separate but equal is inherently unequal.”
Also, yes, I have a tremendous amount of contempt for Christianity. The religion and the mindless drones who follow it have earned my derision, particularly the ones who think that it’s okay to deny others their basic rights on the basis of selective interpretation of oft-translated text from desert people who have all been dead for nearly two thousand years, at minimum.
“The Forgotten Man”
That’s even worse than the painting OW posted. Yikes.
They may not have been gods, but at least one of them ate opponents brains and invented cocaine, so, you know, close enough.
s/b “opponents’ brains”
Even Jesus would hate this painting, not only for its composition, but because he totally wasn’t that tall. Scale people! Scale!
If marriage is just a “right” to you loons, than why stop with teh gheys? Surely, polygamists, those who wish to marry species and couples of various ages deserve your support as well, don’t they?
Anything you say, Reverend fucking Kinsolving.
If marriage is just a “right” to you loons
Us and SCotUS.
than why stop with teh gheys
Well, those things you mentioned aren’t protected by the Constitution. Gender is.
Or since most Americans support civil unions than “gay marriage” is it really about a word (i.e. your contempt for Christianity)?
Two things:
1. If Christianity is going to be destroyed by gay marriage, then I suggest you guys just give up now. I wouldn’t subscribe to an ideology that could be killed by a stiff breeze, myself.
2. So you’re saying you’re fine with separate but equal?
When it comes down to either fighting for an archaic concept versus fighting for actual human beings and their families, I’m going to choose the latter every time. I’m sorry you don’t feel the same way.
Jesus did so write the Constitution!
Burn, if you go to the original painting webpage linked by Oliver above, you can “mouse over” any part of the picture and a text window to the side explains the author’s intent. As for the specific figures you inquire about, the judge is a Supreme Court Justice with his head in his hands over the shame the decisions the Supreme Court has brought to America (I am sure Roe v Wade is numbered in that list. I am equally sure Bush v Gore, and Citizens United is not.) The description for the other guy is a politician who has his back turned to God and though he wears a flag pin he is more concerned about his personal ambition than what is best for the country.
So yes, it is Dick Cheney.
MrGreyWolf: “Or since most Americans support civil unions than ‘gay marriage’ is it really about a word (i.e. your contempt for Christianity)?”
If you really think Christianity is so great, put your money where your mouth is.
Mark 16: 15-18.
Wingnuts marry their sisters.
They fuck her goat.
They just don’t marry their sisters goat.
The subtle distinctions liberals will never understand…
Timmy everyone is inbred out the ass. If you do the math there would have had to be around 17 billion people on earth around 1000 AD, and they would have all been your 31st great grandparents.
lol Suicidal – rather than address the issues you let timmy trap you into arguing that we are ALL Inbred? really? WTF do you mean do the math – hah – genetic diversity is such that 31st great grandparent means it’s not inbreeding – QED. I’m curious as to where you got the notion that “we all do it” is this some kind of justification you learned from a relative?
*
*It’s a pretty peculiar view, not one that someone would think could be arrived at independently – absent some ulterior motive. Just sayin
Now, actually on topic (and directed at nobody in particular)…
If we had called the government’s idea of “marriage” a civil union since the beginning – I hardly think we’d be having this discussion at all.
Marriage seems to imply some sort of spiritual union.
I don’t really like the idea of any government dictating the terms of my faith.
A civil union seems absent the religious baggage. And leaves the feds out of the whole thing. the state too…while allowing the state to engage in recognizing these unions as a civil contract.
At the very least it seems we’d be discussing the political and societal ramifications of allowing certain contractual unions, rather than being mired in hot-button faith stuff – sadly I think this is what some intend – it’s a classic wedge.
I want my church to deal with my marriage.
My govt can underwrite the union as a civil contract.
But stay the hell out of my beliefs.
Bottom line, though AFAIK:
I don’t think it’s possible honest to have an honest discussion about the govt’s role in our civil unions if we keep pushing the faith BS…
can we just agree to discuss in terms of policy impact, and try to check our (highly subjective) respective faiths at the door?
Yeah, I thought not.
GreyGhost,
Why would you argue the bestiality bullshit.
Slippery-Slope is a fallacious argument – says your debate teacher (why didn’t u pay attention)
It’s simple bigotry, and it also ignores the issue of CONSENT. specifically contractual consent.
You’d get further arguing the polygamy angle than you’ll get with bestiality, because (2 reasons)
1) you do not need to rely on a slippery slope. Polygamy begs a very good question regarding contractual consent, and helps force the gay marriage proponent into possibly arguing from a weak position – that of condemning polygamy from a policy standpoint while condoning gay marriage
2) The bestiality argument is a bigoted, mendacious, and stupid argument. even if u don’t think it is, most people do so it’s not worth employing- You’ll only earn scorn for it. see Santorum’s 2012 prospects. google santorum for the reason.
There. Now maybe you won’t argue your case like such an idiot.
Glad I could help.
A
@mambochicken23,
“Also, yes, I have a tremendous amount of contempt for Christianity. The religion and the mindless drones who follow it have earned my derision”
mindless drones, blind faith, yeah – they deserve derision. it isn’t all christians. you’re view is colored because you live in a western nation where christianity is dominant. you wanna see some real shit – check out the christians in china … their struggle will make your hippy liberal heart break.. serious man – we’ve got blinders over here
“, particularly the ones who think that it’s okay to deny others their basic rights on the basis of selective interpretation of oft-translated text ”
Jesus talked about these cons – ‘cept he called ‘em Pharisees… jokes on those assholes. Jesus talked at length – a lot about class and underclass – but intertwined throughout is a message that says Christianity is an underground movement. He says, if u are going to walk with him, you’ll be marginalized, and joining hands with the marginalized around you. Ergo, Christianity doesn’t jibe well when it is a dominant force. People inevitably fuck it up. The irony is that Christianity seems at its best when the people around you will kill you for practicing it.
Most people in this country don’t understand what Christianity would actually look like – if they do, they probably came from a place hostile to it – Chinese christians sure as hell get it.
I don’t like your broad brush, but I think you mean well.
When I got married, my wife and I stood on the yellow footprints painted on the floor in front of a petty county bureaucrat’s desk. We verbally agreed to the terms of the contract that she read to us, and we were out the door in ten minutes, fifty dollars lighter. Less painful than renewing a driver’s license, and that’s how marriage should be handled.
A couple of days later we threw a big party, but we didn’t invite the woman in the pantsuit who married us. Hit 25 years a week ago.
My wife and I got the contractual bits out of the way a week before our wedding… it made the event easier, and we got to take off to disneyland =P the night after the event, knowing all of our shit was in order. names updated etc…
we are both very grateful for the way that made things…
didn’t seem wierd at all to do the contractual stuff seperate ..
and we didn’t announce it.
in fact, almost nobody knew we were already “married” before our wedding. heh
we are both very grateful in retrospect, it was nice to not have to worry about name issues and the like when we needed access to our bank while out of state on our honeymoon.
Seems natural to keep them seperate.
My wife and I both consider our event date as our actual “wedding” date. That’s the anniversary we respect – the paperwork is just a little off. =)
seems like we had very different experiences RR,
but we both seem to like the civil union thing…
this is upshot. this right here, if we can separate the contractual part and the faith part (render unto cesear what is caesars may apply here) I think nearly everyone could find something sane we can live with at the legislative level, while respecting each others personal decisions regarding faith.
And I have no specific problem with gay folks getting married – meaning in a church – if it is consistent with the beliefs of their church.. (if not maybe they need to find a different church!)
I also fail to see the harm in allowing our legislation reflect the fact that gay people do enter into unions we’ve traditionally characterized as one man one woman – or MORE traditionally characterized as one man+one woman (must be same race!)… obviously this kind of thing is doomed. our govt needs to be flexible enough to accommodate this reality, regardless of how the fuck you may feel about it personally.
Also,
Banning gay marriage doesn’t preserve any kind of sanctity. why is it that I hear so much about marital sanctity from people like Newt Gingrich and Rushbo – jesus wept, have you seen the divorce rate in this country? seems no one appreciates undermining marriage more than straight people!
Truth be told, if sanctity were so important, you’d get pissed at any attempt to define marriage through something as mundane as our laws. god is beyond our laws. fuck our laws right? what is the govt business in this affair?
shit man, u guys should be cheering civil unions as much as anyone else.
And (not that they exist) but if anyone actually believes that the govt should force churches to recognize gay marriage they can get fucked. that’s just stupid, unconstitutional, and fucking unamerican – so if you do in fact exist – fuck you…
I’m pretty sure that last one is just a social conservative’s bogeyman….
” I’m curious as to where you got the notion that “we all do it” is this some kind of justification you learned from a relative?”
In researching family trees, I have seen 2 particular lines mary several times over a thousand years of history. 1890, 1530, 1265 & 1005.
Then I did the math along 33 generations to calculate the total number of ancestors at this point. parents (2) grandparents (4) Ggrandparents (8) doubling each generation and the number of 31st great grandparents would be about 17 billion.
The estimated world population around 1000AD was 265 million. That is only about 1/30th of human history, once you hit 50 generations around 500AD it won’t even fit on a calculator.
And remember we are only talking about one person out of 6 billion today.
I know Timmy was referring to the typical Mother, Brother, Sister, Cousin inbreeding. Just saying once you hit a certian level inbreeding is inevitable.
“Silly” argument? It’s a TOXIC argument!
The authors of the Constitution did NOT think they were “creating” even a single right. They were merely acknowledging them. And just in case they missed any, they provided in the 10th Amendment that just because a right wasn’t enumerated didn’t mean it didn’t exist (OTOH, the 9th Amendment says that if a power isn’t specifically granted to the government, it definitely DOESN’T have it).
Just saying once you hit a certian level inbreeding is inevitable.
And by the same token, if Darwin is correct then when you fuck your sheep it’s incest.
wow.
Suicide can’t be for real.
Doubles down on incest, while ignoring the point of my argument.
Clearly troll 101
“Just saying once you hit a certian level inbreeding is inevitable.”
No it’s not. You just don’t know what it means.
Just because we are all basically fucking our 57th cousins doesn’t mean we’re inbred.
It’s different than the second cousin thing your parents had going.
Because it doesn’t create a shallow gene pool.
It’s not inbreeding. QED. You are an idiot. QED.
That should clear things up. Further arguments from you can be attributed to you being so stupid you have no idea when you are wrong. Do yourself a favor Suicidal, and shut the fuck up before you humiliate yourself further. It’s tragic to witness.
Getting back to the artist & painting:
Is the school of art that the painting comes from known as “Socialist Realism”?
Does anyone else notice the irony?
The Artist once again trots out the “Liberal Media” argument. I’d argue that the “Conservative Media” is much more aggressive in pushing its’ agenda & much less aggressive in pursuing facts.
Is anyone else bothered by the Artist’s other painting showing President Obama trampling the Constitution to the applause of Franklin Roosevelt & the horror of George Washington? The Artist writes that he is for the Constitution as written, with limited Government and State’s Rights. “Ol Froth” should recognize those terms. Anyone who holds up Washington as a defender of “State’s Rights”, doesn’t understand his beliefs.
& Off topic, “Ol”, how was the reenactment?
BTW in re inbreeding:
Aren’t we all descended from that first group of about 50 “proto-humans”?
“Is anyone else bothered by the Artist’s other painting showing President Obama trampling the Constitution to the applause of Franklin Roosevelt & the horror of George Washington?”
It looks like TR is clapping right along with his cousin. I imagine every President has been accused of trampling the Constitution.
“Just saying once you hit a certian level inbreeding is inevitable.
No it’s not. You just don’t know what it means.”
let’s see, wikipedia defines inbreeding as:
Inbreeding is the reproduction from the mating of two genetically related parents
It does not specify immediate family, just genetically related.
All I am saying is that having an ideal family tree is theoretically impossible when you calculate possible ancestors and estimated world populations, and that everyone is not as genetically pure as they might think.
genetic purity is not the point..
and wiki is not a good scientific source.
you are clearly trying to expand the definition of inbreeding to included everyone.
Your argument is stupid.
You should consider keeping it to yourself.
Flaming,
Why are you so mean? Stop slinging mud at my fellow posters. You need to control your anger or go see a doctor.
It is really pathetic that you are so angry
“you are clearly trying to expand the definition of inbreeding to included everyone.”
Adam and Eve comes to mind.
It was a WWI reenactment this past weekend, and it was great good fun! Although I do need more practice in proper kilt wearing (damn thing kept slipping off, think I mooned half the Kaiser’s army!)