It is in part (though not entirely) a semantic debate, but nevertheless, while I agree with the overall intent of the article, I have long taken exception to the phraseology.
I dispute that one can legislate morality. True morality is an inner state of being. Yes, it is intrinsically related to external behavior, but it is not the same thing.
If you are going to cite Christianity, then so am I: The Bible makes it clear that, although we can and must at times judge (evaluate) another’s actions, and perhaps even judge (punish) anther’s actions, only God truly sees and judges the heart.
What is truly conservative is to legislate objective - external, measurable - behavior. Asserting that we must legislate morality actually opens the pathway to thought policing, which is subjective and leftist.
In other words, legislating behavior of citizens according to specific moral precepts is not the same thing as legislating personal morality in the motivational sense.
The left now condemns all sorts of perfectly legal behavior as being immoral: racist, privileged, elitist. They purport to be judging the subjective morality (motivation), not the objective morality (legality), of those they hate.
Conversely, leftists assert that ersatz homoerotic marriage is in fact moral because it is motivated by subjective love. The objective, equal opportunity of heterosexual marriage afforded to all - to a person of the opposite sex, of legal age, and of not too close a blood relation - no longer interests them.
We must always emphasize that our laws are behaviorally oriented: moral behavior, not merely morality, must be the standard.
Two people can act the same lawful, legal, moral way out of different motives: one motive may be good, the other may be bad. As a citizen, I am not interested in the the motive, and am not equipped to determine it. I am only concerned that both citizens acted behaviorally in a correct manner.
As a Christian, I am interested in the motive, but that is ecclesiastical, not governmental.
bttt
The whole concept of the ethnic melting pot was predicated on the assumption of a commonly-agreed-upon set of moral imperatives.
If we could agree on basic “Thou shalts” and “Thou shalt nots” we could assimilate— E pluribus unum.
The left has upended that. Right and wrong are now determined by group identity.
We can no longer apply “Thou shalt not steal” to everyone objectively.
Anyone who is successful & rich is now guilty of theft, while a burglar who breaks in and steals your stuff is just getting reparations because: not having stuff= racism.