Well, now I’m confused (and no, the Graphix is still on the mantle ).
The OP was about repealing laws, not about foregoing all morality. I don’t think anyone here has said that we should/shouldn’t completely give up societal constraints. Which is why I don’t understand: "I won’t cite any laws that are strictly based on morality, because that’s contradictory to what I’m trying to say. "
Or are you really a starving artist in disguise and think we were better off in the more conformist-minded fifties?
Could gay marriage fit the OP? An ostensibly victimless act between two loving, consenting adults. It’s a bit reverse, in that it’s not a crime to be gay, but it’s (largely) not legal to get married. The root of the law, as I understand it, rests completely with the majority’s (at least in New York and California, and majority only in the sense of majority of people who voted on the issue) sense of morality.
I daresay that the state would see significant economic benefits to legalizing marriage, from licenses to wedding-related businesses to a more stable family population. But (and I know this is about to be a bizarre question), is it moral for someone who opposes gay marriage on moral grounds (put aside general disagreement) to vote to allow it in order to bring in more income into the state and save it from economic collapse? Oh shit, what if doing so would bring in money to fund an after school program designed to keep kids off drugs and away from prostitution!