Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting?

This is true in the same way that killing a butterfly has an effect on the weather.The effects on the couple denied the benefits of marriage outweigh any possible deleterious effect to society by many orders of magnitude. The thin and wispy notions of the 'greater good' are completely disproportionate, and nearly irrelevant, to the real and tangible discrimination and restriction of personal freedom.Tolerance only applies to those things with which we disagree.

Alright, get a room you two (unless your in Iran).The salient point is that withholding marriage rights to gay people is discrimination. Saying that you love them in the next breath is hypocrisy no matter how you might rationalize it.

Yes I agree. My point was that the costs of those minute changes to society are huge to the individuals who must pay them. The benefits are difficult to identify while the costs are large and obvious. Disproportion is the essence of injustice. I don't see any evidence that removing the discrimination against gay marriage will have or has had any effect on heterosexual marriage. The 'institution of marriage' is a construct. Marriages themselves are individual things that exist between two people and are, primarily, for their benefit alone. Society is a secondary beneficiary of the 'institution of marriage'. If marriage is beneficial to society then the right should be extended to all. Denying this right only serves to reduce the societal benefits. Rationalizations of this denial fail to account for the fact that the primary benefit of marriage is a cohesive family unit. Many successful families = one successful society.It is the fact that the marriage exists that provides the benefit. The shape and colour of the marriage are irrelevant.

Except that no benefits have been demonstrated and I don't think that we have a right to decide if what somebody else has to pay is justified unless that cost is also borne by us.

That is not the Golden Rule. It would, in this case, require you to allow anybody else to jump your bones as they wish.

As per the OP I would say the topic is really about the hypocrisy of the position. Which has been clearly shown.While marriage is not an inalienable right being held equal before the law is an inalienable right.

Is there a list of sins somewhere in the bible or do I have to read the whole thing?From Wikipedia;"Sin is often used to mean an action that is prohibited or considered wrong. In some religions (notably in Christianity), sin can refer not only to physical actions taken, but also to thoughts and internalized motivations and feelings. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, selfish, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful"."At the very least, voting against gay marriage has been shown to be harmful to gay couples. The desire to withhold this right is entirely selfish. How can it be anything but alienating? Indeed and that is the problem.Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.Scary as hell for sure. What, then, would qualify?

I disagree. The OP framed it as 'Hate the sin, love the sinner". It has been shown that being contra gay marriage is neither hating the sin nor loving the sinner.The related issue of Christian hypocrisy has been shown, imho.

Cheers and a happy new year.