Fiscal Conservatism requires Social Conservatism.
Granting a lot of new “freedoms” to people costs the taxpayers in many, many ways. Being Liberal may “feel good”, but we cannot afford it.
All Fiscal Conservatives ought to be smart enough to also be Social Conservatives. Of course, that does not mean that the government should “hunt down” or “punish” people who violate social norms. I don’t know a single Social Conservative who wants the government to actively harass citizens over their lifestyle choices.
But making changes (like transgendered bathrooms, or same sex marriage, or polygamy) costs us all money. The low-cost, LIMITED government choice is just to stick with traditional values. Social Conservatism helps keep Big Government in check.
I’d tend to agree... while buggery was banned on the books, it usually took an egregious case to get Johnny Law’s attention. Nobody was doing “gay witch hunts.” The case that got such bans ruled unconstitutional was one of the coincidental arrival in a bedroom of an officer who was following up on something completely different.
This kind of crudely rhymed with the Old Testament system of requiring multiple witnesses to convict (at least of offenses for which the law called for stoning). If it fell below that notoriety level on the radar, it would actually skate on the civic system. It was still a sin and there would be other accountability issues before God, but not through the state.
Trying to make it officially okay, however, opens a Pandora’s box of problems. Now the situations it engenders have to be treated under the law while ignoring the root issue. That is never going to end well.