I miss the point of the article. He seems to be in full agreement with Dobson, but yet is critical of Dobson’s method. I am not sure what he thinks Dobson did wrong.
"It is only by insisting and proposing once again that there is a Natural Law which can be known, and which ought to inform our own attempts at self governance that we can hope to build a truly just society."
This is a bizarre point of view to come from a religious author. How can one know Natural Law, except from an understanding of the scriptures? Without the scriptures, liberals will create their own version of Natural Law?