Basic misunderstanding of the world in which we live. Many things in our world aren't clear and concrete enough to surrender objective conclusions.

According to some, unequal treatment of some people is a moral requirement. Our law has often reflected this distasteful reality.

I'm happy with the implied interpretation of the authors, who could have included "God" in their text if they felt it was important to do so.

The framers had no illusion that they were creating "perfection", which is why they used the language "more perfect". They didn't, for example, have any intention of recognizing the humanity of women, original American Nations, or people of African descent. I doubt that many of them would protest today to see the evolution of our national values towards equality, a more perfect reading of the quote, "all men are created equal".

Since no sane person would intentionally reward those who harm others, no moral judgement is required to avoid this as policy, it's just common sense.

You are avoiding the issue. I have pointed out several examples of moral standards which, while valid to those who uphold them, can NOT be validly imposed on those who don't. If you insist on using moral standards to write law, then you have to distinguish between valid moral standards that can not be written into law and invalid standards that can not. This is a fool's errand.

In our free country we allow people to live to their own moral standards, prevent them from forcing others to do so, and build our laws around rational measures of harm, which are observable and quantifiable.

I did NOT say it was wrong to force my beliefs on others, though it well may be. I said I don't have the RIGHT to force my beliefs on others, which is a different thing altogether.