"Once your actions impinge on the free actions of others, your "moral" stance is invalidated. That goes for the other party, too."
Ahhh, but here is where it always gets interesting. The usual comeback is "whose or what are free actions (moral standards) and who get's to define them?" My experience in life has shown on occasion that that response comes from someone who's likely free actions are to not only be accepted, but celebrated and at times enforced by the rule of law even if those actions contravene centuries of acceptable behavior and are offensive to many if not most.
My thoughts about the matter are that our Founders were exceptionally wise and had a fairly firm grip on human nature. They designed a way of governing a civil society that rejected majority rule and set up a system of checks and balances with a representative form of contemplating laws, civility and order as much as it was possible considering and understanding the human critter tends to be corrupt and selfish to the core. That's why they feared factionalism, pure democracy, citizen ignorance and non participation. Unfortunately the enlightened class seems to disagree and believes that something that sounds good, has never worked, has killed millions, should be forced on us for our own good.