CNN’s Chris Cuomo Humiliates Alabama’s Bigoted Chief Justice Using Only Facts (Video)

roy-moore-chris-cuomoUnless you’ve been living under a rock the last few years, it’s fairly obvious that same-sex marriage is quickly moving toward becoming a legal reality in the United States. As almost all of these bans on gay marriage continue to get overturned, and with our Supreme Court set to rule on this issue in the next few months, it’s no longer a matter of if same-sex marriage will become legal in this country, but when.

But this reality hasn’t stopped conservatives all across this country from doing just about everything they possibly can to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Though that’s to be expected; when your ignorance is as glaring as theirs is, no one expects them to lose quietly or gracefully.

Make no mistake about it, however, they are are going to lose.

Perhaps the most egregious defiance of this move toward marriage equality in this country happened recently when Alabama’s Chief Justice Roy Moore flat-out told probate judges to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a direct violation of a federal judge’s ruling on the issue and a blatant slap in the face to our Constitution and the rights it protects.

Well, during an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Moore was soundly humiliated as the CNN host absolutely schooled him on our Constitution and brilliantly exposed his bigotry and ignorance.

“I would suggest that your refusal goes to what you believe marriage is about, and not just to the law,” Cuomo said. “This is just like the Ten Commandments situation. You were told by the federal courts, remove the Ten Commandments from the public square. You didn’t want to, and you wound up losing your job because of it.”

“It’s not about my feelings, it’s about the law,” Moore replied. “And my law, Alabama law, states that I’m chief administrative officer of the judicial system and I must act when the jurisdiction of the probate courts is interfered with by one lone judge who has no power or authority to tell them how to interpret the federal Constitution.”

“It’s about discrimination,” Cuomo stated.

“It’s about sexual preference overcoming an institution which has existed in our state, in our United States for centuries,” Moore quipped.

“Is equal protection a matter for the Supreme Court?” Cuomo asked. “The answer is, of course, yes.”

At this point it’s clear that Moore is already losing this debate badly. At one point in this country’s history our “traditions” were slavery, denying women the right to vote and segregation. Going by Moore’s logic, I guess he feels those shouldn’t have been stopped either considering they had “existed” in Alabama and the United States for generations previously. He claims he doesn’t feel that way, but it only exposes his hypocrisy either way.

But then Moore’s ignorance was really exposed.

“Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God,” Moore insisted.

“Our laws do not come from God, and you know that,” Cuomo replied. “They come from man. Our rights do not come from God. That’s your faith, that’s my faith. But that’s not our country. Our laws come from the collective agreement and compromise. You’re citing that marriage is about a divine institution. You’re putting God before the laws of man. You’re making it about that. And it’s about your ideas of your faith about what marriage is.”

“When you take the rules of your religion and you put them on everybody else, that is not what we do in this country,” he continued. “Your definition of marriage is based on your faith, you’ve said it a hundred times, that it is derived from God. That is not how it works here, and you know that. Equal protection applies to all by compromise. And you would even need to have a rational basis for why it would need to be only between a man and a woman, and all you can say is, ‘Because God said so. It’s always been that way.’ That’s not enough.”

Game. Set. Match.

The simple fact that Roy Moore, someone who’s supposed to interpret our Constitution impartially, claimed that our rights come from God  and not our Constitution should instantly be grounds to remove him from his position. He flat-out said he rules based on the Bible and not the laws of our land. If that’s not grounds for dismissal I’m not sure what is. In fact, every case on which he’s ever ruled should be looked back on and checked to make sure his judgements weren’t based on his own personal religious beliefs.

But Moore was absolutely crushed during this interview. The moment he said, “Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God,” it was over. That line in and of itself nullifies any legal argument he has against same-sex marriage.

And while fools like Moore will continue to fight against the inevitable, it never gets old seeing their blatant ignorance exposed for all the world to see. When Moore basically admitted that he rules based on the Bible and not our Constitution, he not only exposed himself, but in reality he exposed the entire bigoted and unconstitutional argument against equality.

Watch the interview below via CNN:

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Nancy B

    Equal protection and civil rights were the points I made on Roy’s Facebook page. It was there all of 5 minutes before it was deleted, along with every other negative comment posted, and I was blocked. The man can’t argue his way out of a paper bag.

  • strayaway

    “Our rights do not come from God.” -Chris Cuomo, CNN guy

    “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ….” -Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson, scientist, Founder, President, and flaming genius

    “Creator” infers something we are born with. Cuomo instead equates human rights with human laws.

    • Brian

      That’s the best you got?

      • strayaway

        Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence probably trump anything you’ve ever posted. Why don’t you take a shot at defending the right of rulers to mete out what Jefferson referred to as “inalienable rights” anyway? Or do you agree with CNN’s Mr. Cuomo that our human rights are limited by the web of laws our rulers choose to pass?

        A little off topic but I looked up Chris Cuomo. It’s probably coincidence but he is the son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and the brother of current New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

    • Rev. Tom

      The problem with your argument is the quotes you use do not support your position. Equality is anything but a Biblical concept. The Bible supports a hierarchy with God at the top, then down to man and then to women and finally beast. Unless you are Catholic and then priests come between God and man. Pay attention to the wording “their Creator”, that is individual Pagan terminology whereas Christians use the personal, “our Creator”.
      Christians claim their God is the one and only whereas Pagans recognize that each has their own concept of god. In the 1700s Creator was Deistic term.

      To support this read further in the Declaration of Independence:
      ” When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
      “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, this is again Pagan and not Christian.
      To consider the Laws of Nature and of Natures God to be referring to the Christian God, read what the Bible has to say about that.
      Jesus said, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” [John 8:23] and “My kingship is not of this world…” [John 18:36]
      Among the various Pagan beliefs there are many Nature Gods who uphold the Laws of Nature. Try looking at a few of them.

      The Egyptians worshiped Anuket- Goddess of the Nile, Baal- God of the Desert, Yamm- God of the sea, etc. The Hindus worshiped Vedic Gods: Surya- God of the Sun, Agni- God of fire, Varuna- God of Rain, etc. The Greeks had Apollo- God of the Sun, Aphrodite- Goddess of love, Poseidon- God of the Sea, etc. The Romans honored Ceres- Goddess of Corn, Libertas- Goddess of Liberty, Neptune- God of the Sea, etc. The Pagan nature gods number in the thousands.

      Clearly then, to worship a god of nature regardless of whether you think it means the laws of nature of a supernatural god of nature means practicing Paganism by the very meaning of the word.

      So not only does the Declaration of Independence have a Pagan viewpoint but we can also go on to the US Constitution which makes no reference to a God or Creator but in does state “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and
      “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
      That makes it very clear the idea of basing laws on Christian ideas is not acceptable.
      Considering that many Pagan paths do recognize same gender marriage, denial of those rights is a direct violation of the Free Exercise Clause thus unconstitutional and wrong.

      I would challenge you to support the so called Christian ide that same gender marriage is wrong based on the Bible, when used in proper context but you are as likely just as ignorant about that as you show yourself to be with the quote of the Declaration of Independence without understanding the wording and context in which the words were used.

      • strayaway

        Reverend, Thank you for the long and thoughtful reply although I wonder if calling someone “ignorant” might be some sort of a sin in your world. For my taste, you overthought the word “Creator”. I must be a pagan by your definition because I assume everyone is capable of providing their own meaning for the term “Creator”. Whether the “creator” is Mother Nature, a facet of evolution, or Michelangelo’s rendering of the Old Testament God was not my point. I only mentioned that the term “Creator” with reference to rights that “infers something we are born with” as opposed to something elites choose to give and take away from us at their pleasure. If you don’t believe in inalienable rights, then you must believe in alienable human rights like Mr. Cuomo does.

        I never mentioned same gender marriage let alone a Biblical basis for it. I prefer using the dictionary as a starting point. My old dictionary says marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Newer dictionaries define marriage as a union between two or more people. By changing the meaning of the word marriage, courts were compelled to go with the Newspeak meaning. It was a clever ploy.

      • Rev. Tom

        Ignorant simply means not educated, why would pointing it out be a “sin”? You look toward the word “Creator” but my emphasis was on which Creator, “their” as opposed to “our”, Pagan as opposed to Christian.
        Reality dictates that we are not born with inalienable rights. How many children are born with birth defects, diseases or assorted other situations that do not concur with those claimed by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence? If they were given by any Creator, how would such situations be explained? Some will say “God” has a reason however if that is so and even one child is born with any such birth defect then it is not true that “all” have those rights and they are not “inalienable”, we are not born with them. It may be a nice idea but it is not realistic.
        If we consider reality, most of what is sold today as being Christian is in reality nothing more than bastardized Pagan beliefs anyway so being a Pagan compared to being indoctrinated into following some so called “Christian” church doctrine often means the person follows the supposed teachings of Jesus in a more honest way. What many fail to realize due to the generations of church indoctrination is that old Pagan and original Christian teachings were parallel and in many instances identical aside from a different perspective.
        You commented on a posting about same gender marriage and the judges claimed Christian viewpoint which he says dictates his actions. That you did not mention it yourself should not have been necessary unless you are commenting outside of the context of the thread which if is the case, you must have some other problems aside from lacking education and/or a grasp on reality.
        What is the publication date of your old dictionary? Are you assuming that it has the original definition of the word marriage? Are you in denial that marriage existed in other ways prior to the definition you find in your old dictionary? Do you possibly consider that the definition in your old dictionary may be given from a perspective of some bias?
        The judge claims it has always been so however history shows that in America before the first Europeans invaded the land, Native Americans treated what is now called “two spirit” AKA homosexual persons with full respect and were equal in their rights to be married just as heterosexual members of the cultural groups were.
        Many pre-Christian Pagan cultures also accepted same gender marriages. This would dictate that equality predates the definition of a man and a woman. Maybe the “clever ploy” that you refer to was actually partaken of in order to manipulate and control people long before and now the time has come that people are reverting back to the older ways as many people no longer accept the indoctrination of so called Christian churches.
        Various dictionaries just as various versions of the Bible do contain different wording and as one looks at older publications the wording changes even more than just different versions based on interpretation.

      • strayaway

        Why sin you ask? Insulting people based on making arrogant and derogatory assumptions is an act of contempt. So far, I am not attracted to your church reverend. I’m not sure that health is an inalienable right although Jefferson did cite life, liberty, and the right to happiness as examples of inalienable rights. At least government shouldn’t be obstructing such things. While we are at it, Jefferson only cited only one reason for governments to exist -” to secure such rights, governments are instituted””. Although people aren’t born with the same individual capabilities, I agree with Jefferson that everyone is born with rights. It’s interesting that we are finding people on this website who don’t agree with the concept of inalienable rights.

        That I did not mention marriages was only because I was addressing another issue in the article. I’m not home right now so I will have to guess that the date of my oldest dictionary is early fifties. I really don’t care too much about the issue of gay marriage but I agree that using the more recent dictionary definition of marriage, courts are constitutionally correct to allow it. I also agree that older Americans do have a different perspective on gay marriage because they still use older meanings of words. Younger people are taught different Newspeak meanings so their values are different. Gay marriage is very much a generational issue.

    • Pipercat

      The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war. Profound words, but has no relevance for deciding what is, in essence, a matter of contract law.

      • strayaway

        I identified the quote as being from the Declaration of Independence but did not cite it as a matter of contract law. The Declaration also articulates a philosophy anathema to today’s Democratic Party. There aren’t many websites where Jefferson’s words, as found in the Declaration of Independence, would generate hostility.

      • Pipercat

        Perhaps, but still irrelevant to the issue at hand. I think you’re mistaking skepticism with hostility. Regardless, this issue is about a contractual arrangement and wherever the applicable rights may emanate from, they do not involve the pontifications of the followers of the various churches of Rome, i.e. Judge Moore.

        Moreover, since Jefferson is not here to explain his motivations, citing his writings (again) in a declaration of war has no bearing on this particular issue. This issue is a matter of contract law and as such, the argument needs to be confined to that narrow legal focus.

        Remember, taking one quote out of a 20 plus minute exchange and constructing an argument only around that quote is a false attribution fallacy. What we witnessed in the video above was typical exchange between lawyers arguing over a single, yet very broad issue.

      • strayaway

        It was that quote that attracted the most attention and the only one I chose to address. Cuomo’s response was an attack on a widely held belief articulated in the Declaration of Independence. The alternative to Jefferson is to presume that those in power have the right to mete out and withdraw rights as they feel fit. I wasn’t interested enough in the domestic politics of Alabama or the issue of same sex marriage to comment on that part of the article.

      • Pipercat

        For another day then.

  • Jim Bean

    A man, a woman, and a child holding hands. That is a natural family. Two gays holding hands is an unnatural family. Two gays and a child holding hands is a doubly unnatural family. Those fringe elements of society that disrespected the natural family in their effort to erase the distinctions between the two earned the disrespect they are sometimes getting.

    Had they gone the civil union route and left the term ‘marriage’ out of the conversation, they would have achieved all the same legal protections and earned a greater degree of acceptance.

    • sherry06053

      Equal rights are equal rights for everyone. Your “natural” is not everyone’s “natural”. Civil unions may have “achieved all the same legal protections and earned a greater degree of acceptance.” for you, but none of this affects you. It’s not about you. Equal rights are equal rights, and if 2 consenting adults feel their relationship is deserving of marriage, our Constitution gives them that right.

      • strayaway

        Can two cousins or any other same sex family members get married under same sex marriage laws? If not, why not, as those choices must surely be equally be protected among consenting adults. Why isn’t polygamy and polyandry similarly protected? There is nothing sacrosanct about the number two.

      • BB-Mystic

        I think it’s silly to prohibit first cousins from marrying–some states allow it, some states don’t. I believe the original reasoning was to guard against too close relatives having children, but in the age of genetic counseling, that can be worked around. So I think those laws should be struck down.

        As far as polygamy/polyandry goes, there are no pending cases working their way through the courts that I am aware of. However, the main obstacles, as far as I can see, would be logistical, since pensions/taxes/inheritance/property divisions/etc etc are structured around two people, not several. To allow for a group marriage of several adults would require a major revamping of said laws, along with drawing up a multi-person marriage contract, and also restructuring divorce laws if one person wants to leave the marriage.

        Having said that, I don’t see anything wrong with it as long as those problems can be worked out and the marriage involves adults. Note this is very different from the “LDS”-type polygamous marriage, which consists of one man and several (underage) wives. That’s not what I’m talking about here.

        If someone should, in the future, file such a case, the conversation would definitely be worth having.

      • strayaway

        I agree. These possibilities are all as logical and as constitutional as marrying same sex couples. Wouldn’t it be odd though in states that forbid cousins from marrying to extend that prohibition to same sex cousins who marry.

    • FD Brian

      pretty sure we’ve proved in the past that separate but equal is anything but equal.

    • BB-Mystic

      If a gay man/lesbian is only attracted to members of the same sex, for them that is “natural.”

      If I, as a heterosexual, am only attracted to members of the opposite sex, for me that is “natural.”

      If a bisexual man/woman is attracted to members of both sexes, for them that is “natural.”

      I live in a neighborhood with two lesbian couples. I don’t know the one well, but the other consists of two of the most delightful people I have ever met. Their family is just as “natural” as mine, and if they had children I’m sure they would make good parents.

      You have no business telling me or anyone else who I should be attracted to, or who I should spend my life with, if I as a consenting adult choose to do so.

      This is the beauty of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, that the Equal Protection Clause can be applied to all these situations to secure people’s rights.

      Since the indications from Supreme Court watchers are that the justices are gearing up to do just that, I rather think you had better start getting used to the fact that gay marriage will be the law of the land in all fifty states.

      As far as “acceptance” goes, this Gallup poll shows that has steadily increased, from 27% in 1996 to 40% in 2001 to 55% now. I would imagine that number will only continue to grow, since it is abundantly clear that, as gay marriage is permitted in more and more states, the sky is not falling, and life is going on just as it had before.

      www DOT gallup DOT com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

    • Jordan

      Jim Bean, it’s been a while.

      Can I assume you don’t use a car or live in a house either, since, after all, it’s “unnatural”? You know, at one time not too long ago, interracial marriage was considered “unnatural” as well and slavery was considered to be the order of things. Are you prepared to be on the “separate but equal” side of history again?

    • usorthem3

      Go fcuk yourself Coward homophobe. You will never be man enough to take my life because your weak & pathetic god says so.

    • Katie Holmgren Hanson

      It used to be considered natural for a 30 something man to walk with his pregnant 13 year old wife. Times change. Marriage is a contract joining two people together in life. If u want a religious marriage go be Mormon n get a couple wives. Or don’t get a marriage contract just a priest to say ur married with no legal backing.

    • Andy Kinnard

      What is this, “natural family”, artificial (and wholly undefined) standard? Your whole first paragraph is an appeal to that (placeholder for religious belief).

      They chose not to pursue civil unions because “separate but equal” just clang in the ear, you know?

      I would totally accept our government getting out of the marriage business, but that’d mean for everyone (gay or straight).

  • One question Mr. Moore, “Whose God?”

    • “Would you obey Dredd Scott?” Yes, I would have allowed it, but would have used legal means to fight against it.

  • michael hall

    Because he does not agree with same- sex marriage that makes him a bigot?.