Origin of rights matters

There's a "Declaration Despisers" arm of the secular left that seldom draws direct attention to its avowed disdain for the nation's founding document.

Particularly inconvenient for secularists and their sympathizers are its explicit foundational references to things like the creator, natural law and nature's God as the source of unalienable rights.

Instead, they tend to simply ignore all that language and stress its absence in the U.S. Constitution as some sort of indirect national affirmation of secularism.

It's quite rare to hear anyone come right out and unabashedly declare, "Our rights do not come from God."

Yet that's exactly what happened a couple weeks ago during a debate between CNN's Chris Cuomo and Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore over gay-marriage rights.

Here's the pertinent wording from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It couldn't be stated more plainly that our rights come from God, though it's easy to see how that might stick in the craw of those who don't believe in God. But the context isn't really as much about religion as it is hierarchy.

The founders' point is that man-made governments cannot trample God-given rights.

The very next sentence is a critical distinguishing factor for understanding the foundation of our self-governing republic: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The distinction is obvious: Government exists to secure freedom, and its lawmaking power becomes unjust once the people's consent is lost.

Special-interest groups, by definition, value their own interests above everything else. Gay-marriage advocates don't worry about weakening our form of government if that's what it takes to get their way. That's why they don't try to use the amendment procedure to give their cause truly constitutional standing.

It's so much easier to get one federal judge in Alabama to issue a ruling. Judge Moore doesn't think that's governing, which is why he instructed state probate judges to uphold Alabama's constitution.

You may remember Moore for his Ten Commandments antics a decade ago. His refusal to obey a federal court order to remove them from the statehouse ultimately cost him his job.

He was re-elected as chief justice in 2012, and in his CNN interview he explained his order to block same-sex marriages.

Cuomo asked Moore: "So the basic question is, the federal law should rule and it says to the attorney general of your state, allow the marriages to go forward. Why are you resisting that?"

"Because that's not the federal law," Moore replied. "What you're confusing is law with an opinion of a justice, and that's the basic fallacy which all this is built upon. What one lone judge in Alabama federal court says is not law. If it were law, then the United States Supreme Court wouldn't be meeting to determine this issue in April through June."

As their discussion became more animated, it deteriorated into TV-caliber "analysis," in which Cuomo was basically baiting Moore: "So you think gay marriage is wrong, right? Just say it."

At one point, during a rapid-fire exchange, Cuomo dropped his bomb.

"Our rights do not come from God," he said. "That's your faith. That's my faith. But that's not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise."

Cuomo, who as a Catholic believes in God, apparently got confused about rights and laws in his zeal to promote the gay-marriage cause.

The principle at issue throughout has been whether it's wise or proper for judges to create constitutional rights for things clearly not mentioned in the Constitution.

Gay marriage has enough political momentum that it's destined to become the law of the land when the Supreme Court rules on state restrictions later this year.

But we the people should never be chastised or ridiculed for expressing fidelity to founding principles and documents.

That responsibility rests in one of the most forgotten phrases in the Declaration.

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."

Some people are happy to subvert the amendment process in order to put something into the constitution that isn't there.

But cheating the system changes our form of government and threatens the checks and balances designed to keep it from becoming destructive.

God-given rights imply a moral rooting that runs contrary to "anything goes" secularism, and that's really what is often under attack.

Cuomo sought to make Judge Moore seem backward, but even some justices disagreed with the Supreme Court's refusal to leave Alabama law intact till it resolves the matter.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, accusing the court of looking the other way "as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws" without preserving status quo.

"Today's decision represents yet another example of this court's increasingly cavalier attitude toward the states," he wrote. "I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve."

------------v------------

Dana Kelley is a freelance writer from Jonesboro.

Editorial on 02/27/2015

Upcoming Events