I would push back on the ideas that there exists an objective moral law at all. I also don’t necessarily believe all laws come from a desire to align society with some moral ideal. But assuming the above two things are true I don’t think it’s possible to know “God’s opinion” at all. Therefore the only thing we can really go on is the real tangible benefits a law will give to society. My problem comes in when people justify enshrining harmful acts in law with the justification that it will save an immortal soul of some kind.

morality is fundamentally based on opinion. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem, Hume writes: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."