First, without an interest in social engineering via tax credits and other incentive arrangements, no political administration would have any legitimate interest in marriage to begin with. Homosexuals could then be legally married as long as they could find people willing to recognize their marriage contract. The denial of marriage to homosexuals is less a consequence of prejudice (most of us are either in favour of it or indifferent to it), but of the top-down culture of centralized politics which is subject to the corrupting influence of this or that special interest group. For this reason it simply bores the tits off me to hear about how bigoted this or that anti-gay group is; they are unimportant. It is the centralizing vacuum of democratic politics that is the problem. Without that, they would be powerless.
Second this "hate speech" nonsense is exactly that: nonsense. It literally doesn't make sense. Should I be convicted of a "hate speech crime" for saying I hate communists? Or for saying I hate the local people who leave soiled nappies ["diapers" in Americanese] and other food garbage lying around in the park late at night for me to clean up after them when I'm walking my dogs? If not, then the concept is empty and meaningless and should be discarded. The "hate-speech" anti-concept has no use whatsoever except as a pathetic apology for legislative restrictions on free speech. If you support "hate speech" legislation, you cannot also claim to support free speech. To support free speech, you have to defend the right of people you may strongly dislike and disagree with to say all kinds of horrible things. If you can't do that, then you have no business pretending to be a "liberal", and should declare yourself an opponent of free speech. It really is as simple as that. Get over it.