Posted on 02/13/2015 7:43:29 AM PST by NKP_Vet
During a heated discussion over gay marriage, CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo opined that the unalienable rights endowed to all Americans do not come from God.
Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men, Cuomo blurted out:
“Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”
Maybe Mr. Cuomo flunked elementary civics. The opening sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly affirms:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
It may be more convenient to Cuomo’s political philosophy that a select few are empowered to grant rights to the masses, but it certainly is not part of this country’s foundation.
What’s worse is Cuomo is advocating “collective” rights. He speaks as if every American right can simply be overturned at a whim simply because "times change." “Sure, freedom of speech was great in 1789, but we've evolved beyond that as a collective society.” This is a very dangerous slope on which to tread.
Maybe CNN will help their anchors learn American history on the network’s new game show. Chris Cuomo desperately needs the tutoring.
More hate speech from CNN.
I’ve always wondered what Atheists think about “our rights come from God” ... when they don’t think that there is a God at all. That must be quite a problem for them, in terms of the Declaration of Independence.
If your rights come from man as Baby Sphageem (sic) says, then by definition they are not inalienable. Inalienable means they come from God, in a broad sense. Because what man gives, man can take away.
Silly talking head thinks he lives in a Tyranny.
HAHAHAHA!
No, wait...
Marxists believe they have evolved into gods.
Pray America is waking
What a doofus. The whole concept of inalienable rights is to protect us from laws.
They have to deny God in order to take away what He has given to us.
My rights come from my gun.
In order to make the point, I would even concede to an atheist that, ok, for you they do not come from God but we should at least agree that inalienable means immutable, imbued and natural rights: they are not up for approval or discussion. And they certainly are not dispensed by ANY government or man.
We can withhold our consent to be governed. No to Bush, Christie, Jindal, Perry, Walker, Pence, Martinez, Pataki, etc. Palin is excused because she saw the error of her ways and got out of there before the term was up.
So when does the U.S. Supreme Court declare the Constitution unconstitutional? Maybe in my lifetime . . . and I don’t have that many years left.
If our laws and policies really came from collective agreement and compromise, there’s no way we would be on the verge of 50 state homosexual marriage. Because there is no collective consensus that we should have homosexual marriage. Its being shoved down our throats by federal courts. How does this fact reconcile with what Cuomo is saying???
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are two different things. The latter should not be quoted when talking about law. It is not not a legal document and has no legal standing.
This is the same Maroon who called the Charlie Hebdo terrorist an “African American”
Judge Moore is on the right side of the marriage argument. The problem with having a debate with a liberal is establishing an agreeable baseline from which to argue. If a person can’t agree that our unalienable rights come from God and not government (men), that the U.S. Constitution is not a “living document”, that there’s such a thing as states rights and that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot make laws simply by rendering decisions then no rational discussion regarding marriage, abortion, etc. can occur with that individual.
It goes right along with the left’s view that the Constitution is a “living document” where meanings change withe the will of the majority of SC justices.
I wish the Cuomos stayed in Italy.
And I’m Italian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.