If you are a type who wishes to have your own personal issues be legislated using a representative government (such as condemning and banishing homosexual behavior, for instance), then you should not be surprised when that same representative government process enacts legislation runs roughshod over your ability to discriminate and make discernment's without the fear of enforced law...of course, the law was created because someone with differently held beliefs that you have had their own personal issues to be legislated!
No, we'd have just had those laws passed back around 1798 instead of just a few years ago.
Someone's views are always going to be legislated. The issue is, whose views are healthier for society (with special attention to raising children) and whose views permit the most constructive freedoms for the most people.
You still haven't cited a nation where socially liberal attitudes have led to less overall government, as opposed to more. If your reasoning made sense, then Sweden (probably the most socially liberal and "tolerant" place on earth) should be a bastion of low taxes, private gun ownership, limited government, and decentralization. Instead, it's the opposite. Ditto for San Francisco. Try going there and collecting names on a petition opposing national health care.
The more socially liberal and "tolerant" an area becomes, the bigger its government gets, the higher its taxes go, and the more centralized it becomes.