Man, if he is anything intrinsically, is not democratic. Morals are inter-subjective, but not subject to a consensus as you claim, but instead subject to the whimsy of the willful, the coercion of large groups setting the norm, historical contingencies, etc. Even the intention of morality changes, to bring peace, to evoke fear, to maintain control, to set standards, to emulate God, to get at the truth, etc. Rights are a concept set up to protect us from the whimsical nature of morality. They act as fences, encircling the cages bull we call morality.
Thankfully, for some of us, overcoming the obviously primitive concepts of morality and human rights is easy in this modern day and age. Our language has advanced far enough at this point where we can even start to discribe accurate models for pain and humiliation. Morals are out the window for most people, even people who might still profess morality never once make decisions inspired by morality--- I know I don't, I'm not a fucking moron. We can now eloquently describe and fulfill our intentions with morality through simple lawfulness and pragmatism. The archaic times are soon to be behind us, despite how much cow-towing man does to the church he does not think the same as he once did, even the church is losing its power. (I mean, we've been to space and split an atom, I think we've demonstrated the uselessness of idol worship.