“Even when conservatives of doubt disagree with others’ moral convictions, they recognize that, in a free, pluralist society, those other views deserve a hearing. So a conservative who believes abortion is always immoral can reconcile herself to a polity in which abortion is still legal, if regulated. Putting government power unequivocally on the side of one view of morality—especially in extremely controversial areas—must always be balanced against the rights and views of citizens who dissent. And, precisely because complete government neutrality may be impossible on these issues, government should tread as lightly as possible. The key in areas of doubt is to do as little harm as possible. Which often means, with respect to government power, doing as little as possible.”

This just makes no sense. What’s that “So” doing there? Because alternative views deserve a hearing—something, by the way, that most “conservatives of faith” would agree with—those views must be allowed to prevail? And doesn’t the reason that something is held to be immoral matter? A person who believes adultery is always immoral should be able to reconcile herself to (or even enthusiastically support) a polity in which it is legal. She may not be able to reconcile herself to the killing of innocent human beings, and she shouldn’t. We do not, on account of “pluralism,” generally allow people to make their own decisions about who they can kill. There was a time when the morality of slavery was an “extremely controversial” area. Government power was eventually put unequivocally on the side of one view of morality. The fact that many people disagreed—and expressed themselves rather emphatically—was not (and should not have been) held to be a decisive reason for the government to refrain from acting.