I much prefer my position that freedom and fear do not intersect.
I like your idea that freedom and emotion are orthogonal. A lot of the problem we're having with "culture wars" right now is the blurring of the line between the two. I think separating the two ideas might help solve a lot of issues from "cancel culture" to "war on Christmas" and "safe spaces" and maybe even gun control. You can hate/fear/boycott a comedian who offends you but you aren't owed their head on a platter. It's OK to think that your being a Christian/Vegan/Cosplayer is sacred but you shouldn't expect everyone to cater to your belief.
=> "You do not have the right to fear the decline of traditional marriage." Particularly relevant if you think, for instance, the gay agenda would be corrosive to your own marriage, due to what I am told is widespread sublimated homosexuality, or the dating life of your children, due to similar reasons. Regardless, I believe telling people that their fear is invalid doesn't tend to be a crowd-pleaser. Instead, I take the more extreme but also I think more defensibly liberal position that their fear is irrelevant, because reducing fear is not a legitimate policy goal of a well-functioning state. A state should reduce the referent of a fear, if such a referent exists.
A state should not engage in sociology - it should not strive to shape the emotions of its citizenry. Such an endeavour is corrosive to the control mechanism of democratic feedback, because it decouples citizens' reaction from reality.
"Any proxy measure that becomes a policy target ceases to be a good proxy measure."