So, in summary: I agree that everyone votes to their own morality, but I suggest that not everyone votes solely to their own morality.
The idea that there "unalienable" rights is a moral claim.
It actually isn't. I mean, it is, but not on
my part. The writers of the Declaration of Independence made that moral claim; I am only referring to the established principles of the nation. The country was founded on the notion that there are unalienable rights. It logically follows that in determining the laws of the country, those unalienable rights should be considered. It's not morality I'm considering, but the integrity of the nation.
If more people thought murder should be legal, would you still say the same thing? In medieval Japan, murdering someone in private was considered acceptable (of course, making a target of yourself) - doing it in public was a crime however. Does that sound good to you?
Of course it doesn't sound good to me. It sounds insane to me. But if some people want to run a country that way, and everyone in the country agrees to live by those laws (accepting that on any given day someone might privately and lawfully kill them), then I'm not going to try to stop them. I'll stay as far away from their country as possible, and I will voice my moral objections. But if it ever comes down to a vote on whether or not we should declare war and forcefully change the ways of that country, my vote will be for staying out of it and letting them keep on being insane.
Anyway, I fear we're getting off point. The problem isn't voting toward one's own morality. The problem is voting without due consideration of other people's morality. It's thinking that one's own morality should supersede the beliefs and rights of other people.