The first shot at this post was too long and confusing. I had been listening to shows where people were going at each other on different topics. The first part of the post was trying to say that you can think something is wrong, but still think it should be legal.
The idea that you have to "legislate your morality" leads to ruin. In the classical liberal view, the government should be concerned with setting limits on behavior and not on defining its ideals. The limits of the law should be outside what you personally consider acceptable behavior.
The second part of the post was trying to put forward the argument that the converse is also a path to folly. Just because something is legal does not mean it is good. The game where you make the limits of acceptable behavior your ideal also ends up leading to folly.
The long post did not adequately convey that idea. For that matter, I didn't realize it was long. I had listened to two different controversies. The first is a religious group wants to excommunicate politicians for voting for abortion. The second was an ACLU case where they sued someone for reacting to a provocation.
Using these cases really didn't make the point I wanted about the difference between ideals and limits.
BTW, I need to watch out. Apparently I am capable of pounding out 4 pages of words in a short typing session while listening to podcasts.