Love & Acceptance?

I am prompted to write this note because of a status that some I know posted on Facebook. Although I agreed with the sentiment, I did not want to just copy and paste it, but I couldn't alter it to say what I wanted to within Facebook's status limits, so I will post this as a note, instead, and say what I really intend to say on the subject.

The whole point was this: "Let's promote love and acceptance; put this on your status if you also know & love someone who is gay." At the same time, it was protesting "Civil Partnerships" instead of "Gay Marriage".

There are three different points I wish to stress here:
1). Being gay is not a disease or a "lifestyle choice"; nor do I believe it is against God's will. Gay people don't need a cure, but have a right (as we all do, constitutionally) to be treated equally by law.

2). Gay people desire simple acceptance. They're not out to corrupt your kids, or destroy society. They just want to be recognised as human beings with the same rights and desires of everyone else, the basic needs of human life: food, shelter, clothes, basic human dignity, a society of caring people around them, and the right to love whom they love, unhindered.

3). I understand some people would reject "gay marriage" because they don't want it in their church. You want the government not to tell churches what choices to make. Constitutional separation of church and state. Bear with me a moment, though: Constitutionally, you must treat everyone the same way. This leaves you with two choices in our current sytem:

A). One is that gays be granted the right to marry, equally, under the existing laws as they are written, because legally church marriages are recognised by the government as a legal biinding contract; in essence it is not just a wedding, but also a "civil union". These are not separated in current law.

B). The second is that we change our laws to preserve the distance between church and state, and EVERYONE gets only a civil union, under the law, but churches are then free to choose whom they will and won't marry. Weddings become less of a legal contract and more of a holy sacrament.

Defining "marriage" as anything, legally, or altering the constitution, are HUGE steps to take, and must be brought before the Supreme Court, eventually, to decide if such things are constitutional.

Bluntly, if you are treating one group of people differently from another, it is going to be considered unconstitutional.

There. I have said my piece. I truly hope not to have offended anyone. That said, I will say one thing more: I am sick to death of these proponents of "the sanctity of Marriage" with a capitol "m" who on one side say that "allowing gays to marry would soil the institution", who then turn a blind eye on simple, court given divorces, and instead of upholding "What GOD has put together, let no man put asunder", allowing the government to dissolve a marriage that was sanctified by the church.
As far as I know, the Catholic church is the only one that does not recognise the court divorce, to end a Catholic marriage, it must be annulled by the church, or anyone who has a civil divorce and remarries is commiting bigamy and adultery.

Go in peace and love.