Here's a couple of points to consider, plainly put.
1. Is there any such thing as right and wrong? Are some actions and the promotion of same inherently wrong? Are there some actions and promotion of which that are inherently beneficial?
2. If so, who gets to decide? Does the strongest, loudest, most well-funded and well-connected group get to make the rules about right and wrong?
3. Since all monotheist religions (and some that aren't like Buddhism) share the same basic morality, should these religiously based morals inform public policy? If not, why not? If not, what will subsitute for these basic moral guidelines?
4. If society rejects these moral guidelines, then by ommission other morals will be the standard. Who gets to decide which moral world view should be promoted by law?
5. To claim that the government can be morally neutral is either a conscious deception or severely muddled emotion masquerading as rational thought.
6. The new tactic of the ACLU and its ilk is to make the claim that the simple NON-promotion of immorality is an abridgment of the First Amendment. How convoluted and vicious is this?
Well written!
Good points to think about. Thanks littlejeremiah for the post.