It's a slippery slope. There's a big difference in not using the power of the state to persecute gay people and the actual act of institutionalized gayness. You cannot have institutionalized gayness for numerous reasons. The basis of marriage for instance is nothing more than women attempting to use men as an insurance policy. In the old days it was insurance against being eaten by sabretooth tigers, and now it's insurance against having to work or go broke and ending up homeless.
The unalterable female algorithm is to find a male and attempt to extract resources from it and get it to provide her and her offspring with protection against physical and fiscal threats. In this dynamic, it's the man that is required to bring all the inputs to the table (resources and protection and such), while the woman is not bringing much of anything. It requires marriage for a stable civilization, otherwise you'll end up with a bunch of violent, uneducated, bastard children burning everything to the ground.
The burden of making marriage work is on the man since it's him that is providing the inputs. So what if the man refuses to provide those inputs? Society collapses. The only way men as an aggregate WILL EVER agree to provide those inputs is under patriarchy. So, institutionally, aka government policy, marriage can be nothing else besides a strict patriachy with no (((feminism))) or gay marriage or any other nonsense that causes the entire fabric of society to collapse.