Laws = Morals?

When I was feeling particularly academic, I read a collection of Gore Vidal's essays on America. Although the majority of them were good (albeit slightly verbose), one has always stuck out in my head. On this, the day of DOMA being overturned by tax law, Vidal's thesis has been playing on repeat in my mind. Vidal begs the question: should laws be dictated by morals? Even if I believe, to the very grain of my soul, that no one should have use of a small machine that could instantly kill another human - this belief is just that - a belief. If was so concerned about the public school system indoctrinating my child with statements I believed to be false and thus the schools shouldn't teach those things - that is a belief. Forcing the government to make a law or overturn another just because I believe it to be wrong, is illogical. At what point do morals and laws divorce? I think we can all agree that killing someone is wrong. But what if they've been sentenced to death by a jury of their peers? Is that still wrong? Laws require reason and logic; morals may be reasonable, but are up for debate. Laws should be objective - morals subjective. Where do laws and morals go their separate way? The Supreme Court of the United States is my favorite branch of government. Their decisions are often based on their own individual political leanings, but they need to be objectively upheld by law. They require logic; reason is a prerequisite for decisions. Don't get me wrong - the supreme court has made some stupid decisions. But I like the idea that their decisions are upheld by reasons external to themselves. Anyone can follow their logic and arrive at the same place. Just because you believe something to be right (marriage is between a man and a woman) or wrong (limiting the rights of some because of their genders) doesn't mean it should automatically be a law. You need to find a way to get everyone there. Your reasoning needs to be sound to all. Laws may be inspired by morals, but they shouldn't dictate them.