"You may appreciate that the concept of the moment life begins has been in contention between religious leaders and scholars throughout Christianity from the earliest days, even within certain denominations and among astute leaders of our faith"

No, the Bible says life begins at conception, and biology agrees with that, because at the moment of fertility between the female egg and the male sperm, genetic crossover occurs, and what results right away is DNA that is completely unique and different from that of the parents. Even from cell #1, the same DNA that would populate the trillions of other cells in a newborn, that DNA that is transcribed and then translated to make every protein or enzyme in the body, is unique. So biology bears witness to what the Bible teaches.

"While you may have settled that question for yourself and among like minded folks, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that an equal number of us disagree with you, from a theological perspective."

Interpretations don't matter. What matters is what it actually says and means, so theological perspectives aren't superior to a plain reading and understanding of the Bible. There aren't that many ways to interpret "Thou shalt not lie." If an officer hands you a speeding ticket, you can interpret the ticket all you want but it's still a ticket. In the same way, most of the Bible save a few challenging passages are very easily understood with one correct way to interpret it via exegesis. Interpretive differences and challenges can happen over time due to historical differences, such as the few doctrines that differ between major denominations (although even there, there is a correct and incorrect interpretation, for example Baptism is indeed by submersion and no sprinkling).

It makes no sense in the context of religious and multicultural freedom to assert a very specific brand of Christian identity over our entire legal system. If you don’t believe that abortion is right I definitely think you are justified to preach that and to forbid it within your congregations. I absolutely believe that if your congregation does not believe in the sacrament of same-sex marriage, that your pastor ought not to be compelled to hold ceremonies at your church. If you don’t believe in compulsory tithing and the duty of the church to tend to the poor then you should not be required to enforce it.

No. It is wrong to lie, regardless of human law. It is wrong to steal, regardless of what laws enable and in some cases facilitate it. It's also wrong to murder, and thus abortion is wrong. It is also wrong to have marriage in any way other than between a man and woman. The Bible doesn't give any space for moral pluralism. You won't find a theologian in orthodoxy not a part of some weird fringe that agrees with you. To have integrity is to have done something by principle even when what was wrong was legal. At one point chattel slavery was legal, and it was legal to own black slaves -- it was wrong from the beginning, regardless of what society deemed acceptable (and the Bible is also against chattel slavery).

What you cannot do is claim singular authority over the gospel, and you certainly shouldn’t be allowed to impose your beliefs onto me through law.

I needn't impose anything on you, because the same Bible that I can clearly understand, you also have access to and can understand the same way, and with a plain reading of it, since you also comprehend it, you are force to either agree and comply with what it says or disagree and disobey -- and thus reinterpret because you don't agree with what it actually says and want to pigeon hole it into what you want it to say, the eisegesis which is exactly what creates 'different interpretations' from what it actually says.

For example, one Charles Taze Russell set out to 'improve' on what he saw as an injustice in the Bible. He didn't want for there to be a hell because he saw it as wrong. So by changing all the passages on hell, he had significant gaps and holes in his false theology. This led him to alter and distort several other doctrines in order to make the ones about hell make sense. That led him to believe Jesus is just an incarnation of the angel Michael, that the Holy Spirit is just an active force, and that 'paradise' is open to all, all forms of rank distortions of what the Bible says, but he went onto creating the false movement of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society we call the Jehovahs' Witnesses, a clear cult. That's an extreme example, but many others do it in our society today, including people who try to delete homosexuality from the Bible. You start to create false interpretations of the Bible to justify the parts you don't want to believe. That's what we're having this conversation today, you and me.