Gay Marriage Debate

In the debate on gay marriage, one side is constantly accused of trying to push its morality and ideology on the other. What the accusing side fails to realize is that they are in fact doing the exact same thing.  A common question usually brought up is "What does it have to do with anyone else, this is an issue of freedom?"  While that may be true on the surface, upon further investigation, we discover that it is not true at all.  When gay marriage is approved in various contexts, the actual marriage of same-sex couples has very little to do with anyone outside that couple.  But, by granting that relationship the legal status of marriage, people are unwillingly forced into accepting that relationship whether they agree with it or not.  Should a faith-based institution such as a hospital or social service center be forced to give healthcare coverage to a homosexual partner?  By doing so, aren't we forcing them to live as if they believe there is nothing wrong with that?  It is not enough to say simply that this is not a moral question.  It very much is a moral question.  Our sexuality and the way we express it is very much wrapped up in our whole life and our attitudes towards God, sin, life, death, right and wrong.
A "live and let live" type of mentality does no good, because a person who truly is moral to the core will live an integrated life in which all of their morals interact with each other and inform each other.  Thus, for the gay marriage supporter, they would be hypocritical if they did not in some way promote the "normalcy" of homosexuality in the hopes that everyone would accept it.  For the opposition, it would be hypocritical to decry homosexuality as a sin and yet treat a homosexual partner as a spouse.
Perhaps the only real solution that satisfies a notion of American freedom as well as the Christian ideal of not judging those outside the church is to allow for people not to accept homosexual unions as valid.  Practically this would mean that employers could choose not to cover the spouses in such a case.  Of course, they can also choose not to cover heterosexual spouses either.
We have a horrible notion in America that people have a right to believe what they believe as long as it does not impact their dealings with anyone else.  Frankly, that is stupid.  If you elect a Christian to a political post, it is wrong to ask them to set aside their religious convictions while in that office.  If our religion is worth anything (whatever that may be) it has to impact all areas of our life, including the political, economic, and social spheres.  What the constitution says is that as a nation, we will not choose one religion over another and force everyone else to follow it.  It does not ban religion from the political sphere, for to do so would require all politicians to become less of a person and separate their beliefs from their actions, which, if done, means beliefs are worthless.