If there is a moral law, they are not subjective. They may be difficult to determine, but they are not subjective. You can't do a repeatable experiment, but you can observe, deduce, and finally argue for change. That's the way we do things in this society and the way we should.
There has been a change recently to normalize homosexuality. Note: not to criminalize it, to normalize it. This change has been made and it was a moral change. But it was not made with argument and pursuasion, it was done with violence and threats combined with a general effort to cover up the facts. That's far more dangerous than any other social change made in the name of a morality than anything the religious have suggested.
I'm all for morality. But I think it's dangerous, futile, and unconstitutional to put moral enforcement in the hands of government.
And yet, all laws are moral laws. Everything the government enforces comes from a moral position. I might argue that if you can't defend your life you don't deserve to have it, and for the good of our country we should decriminalize murder. That would be a particular moral position. Thankfully nobody has convinced our population that it is the correct one.
A moral change was made. Its enforcement is being put in the hands of government (there are far more laws being suggested to punish any negative thought regarding queers than there ever have been to punish queers). A case in favor of that change needs to be made and it has not been.
And I think it was a bad decision. I will continue to argue so.
Shalom.
But sadly, I think you really don't see it. You are ready to drink the Kool Aid for big government morality police.
Bottom line, you simply seek to have the government impose by force that which you fail to invoke by persuasion. I will never support that.
You are really looking through a delusional and conspiratorial set of lenses. It's almost amuzing.