Jim, I have a problem with large numbers of people from one religion - or from a narrow interpretation of one religion - legislating based on the tenets of that narrow religious interpretation. I do not think this is an inconsistant view with conservatism, if we’re looking at conservatism as meaning “to conserve.” First and foremost I think it is important to conserve freedom. Conserving freedom becomes an issue when lawmakers start using a narrow interpretation of one religion as the basis for legislation.
I am a admirer of Jefferson and an admirer of the Age of Reason, which is the true basis for the foundation of this country.
Religious freedom is not something we should conserve?
The basic moral principles which (used to) be the foundation of law are universal, the exact opposite of any kind of narrow sectarianism.
Laws against murder, assault, kidnapping, theft (which includes robbery, embezzlement, etc), lying (which would include lying under oath, slander and so on), rape, molesting children, sexually abusing animals, animal cruelty, adultery, sodomy, and so on are all based on religious principles.
You don’t like these laws? I realize that laws against adultery and sodomy have gone by the wayside (except in the military code of justice) but most conservatives will agree that the Lawrence vs Texas decision legalizing sodomy was a very bad decision.