Second, it’s far from clear to me just what ‘morality’ and ‘legislation/legislated’ signify if they do not signify the normal acts of writing and passing laws in a polity, the very acts which determine who gets to do what with and to whom and for how long, which implies that they regulate morals within the polity. Whether one is ‘moderate’ in pursuing such legislation is a wholly arbitrary determination. As with the words ‘progressive’, and ‘conservative’, and the like, there is no non-tendentious, non-arbitrary measure by which to assign such adjectives. Indeed, they are most often self-referential and self-revelatory. That is to say, depending on which we find more pleasing, each of us defines as ‘moderate’, ‘progressive’, ‘conservative’, ‘radical’, that complex of moral reasoning and action that we believe ought to be normative.
Given all this, I conclude that there is no act of legislation that is not ‘legislating morality’, and that there is no basis either to determine if one is ‘moderate’ in this, or to assign greater value to ‘moderation’ in the first place. It seems best, then, for the legislator to craft laws based on what is simply good and true, indifferent to all measures of ‘moderation’ or ‘extremism’. The grounds for knowing what is good and true, of course, cannot be determined within the legislative ‘process’ itself, but that’s a discussion for another day.