We already regulate morals, since the time of the founders. Murder, theft and rape were criminalized because they are immoral. Having a semantic debate over whether a certain law is based on a "moral standard" or not is useless and pointless. But abortion for instance is every bit as valid for the government to ban as murder, theft or rape. It's completely equivalent to those on a moral or legal scale. Bottom line, the states at least are allowed to regulate anything that isn't a constitutional right. We can have a debate about what laws are good, but defining one as being based on "morals" or not is meaninless. Some immoral behavior is good to regulate, others are not (such as ones related to free speech). So in some cases it is constitutionally correct to force ones morals on someone else (against murdered, rapists, thieves for example) and sometimes it's not.
morality vs. civil constitutionally guaranteed rights... you have the right to life (common sense here, not an issue of morality) liberty (see the bill of rights for those liberties guaranteed you) and the pursuit of happiness (that can and does include the items you work for and purchase)... murder, rape and theivery are not moral issues, they are civil rights issues.... you must have the ability to separate the two... give it a try (it is difficult to do)