Because if everybody who felt that way did that, there would be a "silent majority" who were opposed, yet wouldn't say anything about it.
Laws which say "homosexuality is ok" are every bit as morally loaded as laws which say "homosexuality is not ok". It follows that a law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals would in fact be "legislating someone's version of morality".
Yes, but is not having a law "homosexuality is not ok" morally loaded? I'm talking about the federal government here actively taking the "homosexuality is not ok" line, and using it to spread its power and morality. If by your definition, any law or lack thereof must have moral consequenes, why not take the tack with the fewest limitations?
Legal marriage is purely a social institution between two people who "love" each other, and I defy you to prove otherwise. If you could show that a sheep "loved" you, I'd be out here arguing there shouldn't be a law against marrying sheep. But I don't think you can do that.
Of course it is (morally loaded). That is government's purpose, to provide for the greatest well being and freedom of the most people by controlling (banning) behaviors that are hazardous to society, such as murder, child molesting or sodomy.
Legal marriage is purely a social institution between two people who "love" each other, and I defy you to prove otherwise.
Marriage is a means to produce and provide for the next generation of the society. Love is merely a benefit to it for those involved. Many societies married with no love involved at all (child and arranged marriages) and most of those marriages worked out great. The importance of marriage is the production of children. Sexually perverse marriages cannot produce children, and if (by some miracle) they could produce children could not raise them in the best environment for raising children