The way I would put it is that once religious values are taken out of political debate, human life inevitably becomes devalued. If it is all just a matter of getting a legislative majority, how can one object on principle to slavery, to euthanasia, to infanticide, to killing the retarded, to killing the aged, and so on. It is well to remember that for hundreds of years, most people in the South thought it was perfectly fine to own other huamn beings, and that these people (who were pretty much like you and me) fought a bloody war for that "right." Slavery ended when the moral conscience of Notherners (who did not have a financial stake in slavery, and so were not blinded by avarice) was fully awakened to the horror of treating God's children like . . . chattel.
I generally agree with your position that morality is at the heart and soul of the debate. I also have no problem with your claim that legislative majorities and morality are not always coincident. One would think that is self evident. Your history is a bit shady however. Massachusetts was in the business of importing slaves and selling them in the south. There are no clean hands where slavery is concerned but there are men who came to understand that slavery was wrong then, now and always.
That's what is so dangerous about pure democracy -- it's the majority unrestrained by law, ethics, morals, or anything else.
Carolyn