informing about the realities and layers of an issue, and opposing them are not the same thing as banning it. there are are so many nuances on recognizing when someone in leadership offers a moral barometer but not a forced directive. i am not a fan of the pope necessarily, but the stance that bought babies and physical mutilation regarding sex changes are a moral calamity is ethically sound. that is not the same thing as laws against it happening. huge difference. this is why there are laws and there is religion and that morality exists outside of the judicial system - you cannot police morality, only discuss it in open discourse. discourse exists to challenge ethical norms and to reinforce them as well; laws are meant to regulate social order, not morality. the slippery slope of considering religious moralism as a signal for creating laws is misguided - there can be conversations about acceptable behavior without the need to legalize or make illegal activity. in fact, the reason robust discourse exists in society is to self-regulate norms: we comment and argue and protest in order to naturally regulate extremism. extremist laws develop when conversation and discourse are stifled by ignorance and fear.