It is true that a society that that could pass, for instance, a Human Life Amendment would never need one in the first place.
However, I am pointing out that many of the citizens in this society are using their vote to socialize the consequences of their anti-social behavior onto those of us who do not behave in such a manner.
Tell you what: why don't all the sex perverts, flamers, whoremongers, drug addicts, etc. everyone that doesn't like the "Victorian Moral Standards" of people like yours truly find a nice plot of land, and we social conservatives will do the same. See how easy it is to keep the social order and rule of law in a place where every time you try to curtail any kind of behavior for the greater good you hear: "You can't tell ME what to do!". I can guarantee that tyranny would result in such a place very quickly.
See Republic, Weimar.
That's a key idea behind the US Constitution. All states would decide those things for themselves. People would vote with their feet according to the results obtained.
But that's not the case anymore. States and communities can no longer decide those matters for themselves. A central authority has usurped local control by force. Which do you prefer, the central model or the local model?
Anyway I remember during his last run for president he was asked about sodomy laws and he was against them, repeat - against. He explained that they are practically unenforceable and when they are it is in an arbitrary manner. Furthermore desire to enforce them invites intrusive government which he is against. In sum he said that unenforceable laws on the books and arbitrary and uneven application undermines people's respect for all law and government institutions and therefore undermined a cohesive society. What do you think about that?