The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus coined what has become known as Neuhaus' Law: "Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed". If I remember correctly, Fr. Neuhaus was referring to mainline protestant churches, such as the Episcopal Church, where this phenomenon was an empirical reality.
I believe that Neuhaus' Law has parallel applications in society and government. We might put it this way: "Where moral and religious truth cannot be preferred, moral and religious truth will sooner or later be proscribed." The implication here is that if government does not actively prefer moral and religious truth, government will eventually persecute the truth in one form or another.
There is no harm in neutrality towards things that are irrelevant. The state can be neutral towards all kinds of things without doing any harm. But religious and moral truth is far from irrelevant when it comes to governing: indeed, it's the proverbial "elephant in the living room" that everyone must pretend not to notice. And the longer the charade keeps up, the more everyone becomes annoyed at the elephant for merely existing. People keep bumping into it, you see, and feeding it and giving it water without permission. You're not supposed to do that. Something must be done about the elephant.
Let's say you have a community in which 90% of the citizens are Christian, and 60% of them actually go to church and take their faith quite seriously. Another 8% of the population is Jewish. The institutions of this community - schools, courts, agencies, etc. - all believe they must conduct themselves in a way that is "neutral " with respect to religion so as not to offend non-believers. Over time, it becomes a community in which all public manifestations of Christianity are suppressed, while meanwhile the religious minority of the town finds itself a privileged class whose public expressions of faith constitute "proof" of the community's neutrality. Soon everyone looks askance at any laws or ordinances that might in some way have derived from Christian morality, and these too are excised. But law must have a moral basis of some kind, and so the old laws are replaced with those founded in a "neutral", secular code of morality that is perceived as completely free of religious influence (and yet, curiously, disproportionately influenced by the community's religious minority.)
And so, here we are today.
All of this is not to say that religious majorities should always prevail, or that religious minorities have no rights, but only to say that a Christian community, if it fails to prefer the truth that it knows and should love, paves the way to its own obliteration. Furthermore, such a community can expect no help from Our Lord, who has promised: "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven."