Most of us are familiar with the phenomenon of some religious people being incrementally inclined toward "more and better" religious observance and then (also gradually) coming to see themselves superior to the rest. Eventually a sort of critical mass is reached whereby a form of policing starts to take place: The more strictly observant begin to exert social pressure on those who do not see things as rigidly as the "correct" ones. It is not unknown for the pressure to go beyond what can reasonably be attributed to scripture (or even well beyond that). An obvious case in point is within Muslim countries (but we see the same sort of thing, only different, within Christianity) where a dress code imposes a uniform and even rather arbitrary accusations of "insults" to the religion or its prophet become a question of life and death.
What we now have taking place in secular society in the West is a situation whereby social pressure and indignation means that complying with the law is insufficient, "moral responsibility" is held up as the reference to follow - but that is a fluid concept, just as the idea of a religion having been insulted. I am inclined to agree with those who say that envy is in there somewhere, so are the old "us and them" class divisions, and other things as well such as simply the rush of allowing oneself to be indignant (which certain sectors of the media play on). Simply because, in modern western societies, having money to spare beyond daily plus emergency needs is not something people want to be known, the money and how it is handled (onshore or offshore) becomes a dirty secret. I know a couple who very obviously are in a surplus situation (by virtue of the pensions they are known to draw, not exact numbers but easily approximated), yet they talk as if they barely know how to make ends meet. This or something like it is repeated up and down the land. I even know someone who feels this modern pressure so severely that when choosing which country to reside in he chose one with high taxation (not his own by passport) over any and all with lower taxation - my understanding is that this was to avoid the feeling of guilt.
By all means, if there is a mood for changing the law then so be it - so long as there is a choice, those who find the change(s) unacceptable will leave, those who don't want to leave will stay. But meanwhile I find the tone of indignant discussion soon becomes irritating because it invariably contains the sort of element that religious preaching does: "It simply IS a matter of right or wrong, I know the difference and They don't".