What Tango said.....
Yes, most laws are applications of moral codes: thou shalts... thou shalt nots. So, yes - it's all morality.
As for law makers/enforcers, it's important they they share the same moral code that I do - or at least the closest available. And it may be some issues actually disqualify them (for example, I do not vote for pro-abortion candidates: that one moral issue disqualifies them IMO; if I had lived in the early 19th Century, being pro-slavery would have been the same, that alone would disqualify them).
I think that for as long as someone else's moral code isn't inherently damaging to the fabric of society there's really no reason why my moral code should be imposed upon them with the force of law. It's always worth considering how a power granted to government may be misused, in the future if not right away.
For example, many people who believe homosexuality is sinful also believe that things like sodomy should be outlawed. The trouble with doing that is that, once we allow the government to regulate what consenting adults do in private, we have no idea where it may stop. A government that has the power to regulate sexual activity between consenting adults could conceivably flip everything around and decide that only homosexual expression is legally valid and anything else is prohibited. Chances are it would be dressed up in something related to keeping the population under control or similar, but if lines are crossed we never know where a future government might take it. Maybe it's better to accept that what consenting adults do in private isn't anyone else's business and leave the government out of it.
In the same way if we attempt to impose our own religious expression upon the population at large, what happens if a future government is largely controlled by members of another faith? Would we want to see prayers to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna, or perhaps even Lucifer, incorporated as a standard part of our daily lives or our children's daily lives? Again, perhaps it's best to accept that people will choose to worship whoever or whatever they consider worthy and whether that is Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Kardashians it's not for anyone to tell someone else they are legally mandated to worship, or not worship, in any particular fashion.
There clearly are things that do need to be enforced with the force of law. As soon as we start to look at things like murder, rape, theft etc we must, by definition, be looking at a situation where one person imposes their will on another by force, and clearly the victim of such an encounter needs justice (protection would be better still, and given the police can't be everywhere at once it makes sense to give the would-be victim as much opportunity to defend themselves as possible, which in turn means they need the right to possess sufficient weapons to correct the imbalance of power that would otherwise exist)
In this election in the USA, we have two very immoral people who have very little respect from anyone. I'm actually quite willing to tolerate much (Jesus appointed Judas..... God used Abraham, Moses, David) as I realize we're all sinners and that God seems able to use sinners. On the other hand, in a democracy, we have a voice. I think my German ancestors could and should have considered Hitler's issues and not voted for him. I think we should look to candidates what suggest respectability, stability, temperment, honesty - not in any absolute sense but generally. I think the two VICE presidental candidates probably have that, too bad they aren't running for president. Personally, I chose to not vote for either since I find both of them dangerous and disqualified..... although I TRIED (I really did!) to find something that would allow me to vote for Trump since I agree FAR more with his policies and he is pro-life.... but I find him so offensive, so lacking in respectability, so embarrassing..... I just couldn't do it.
I've said before that I wish Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush could have been disqualified, merely to make it clear that in "the land of opportunity" you don't get to be president just because of family ties. With a presidential roll call that ends Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama the last thing we need is another Clinton or another Bush tacked on the end.
I still find it quite remarkable to see the levels of hostility the two candidates currently face. It's no surprise that the Democrat machine wants to demonise Trump and no surprise that the Republican machine wants to demonise Clinton but the levels of hostility both face from within their own parties is quite remarkable.
