Hypocrisy shrouds the gay marriage debate?

So says Kirsten Powers in USA Today

First, many thanks to Ms. Powers for having an honest conversation about institutional anti-gay stances within Christianity. Her arguments are pointed, but civil and respectful. One would hope that commenters would follow in kind.
.
Second. There really are 2 different issues here that have been muddled together. I think the primary issue is what are the basic human rights due gays and non-gays alike. The secondary issue is why have humans failed, for thousands of years of civilized society -- both Christian and pagan, to divine that "marriage" is an institution that must stop discriminating against other combinations of human affection.
.
The official Roman Catholic stance is that gay sex is highly disordered and engaging in gay sex is a sinful failing. Engaging in other conduct like pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex is also deemed a sinful failing. Pundits like Ms. Powers cannot change these core teachings, yet the political left is so endeared to their political beliefs that conflicting spiritual beliefs must yield to the prevailing politically correct view. Still, Christians can certainly choose to refrain from calling out this sin (just as they tend to refrain from calling out pre-marital and extra-marital indiscretions), and treat all people with dignity (but not to the point of clearly endorsing or dignifying behaviors that are sinful failings).
.
My view is that gays have always had the right to to gift and bequeath property amongst themselves and to establish rights between them by contract. Historically, insurance and retirement plans have carved out special arrangements for persons who were married -- but now it is common that these plans allow for same sex beneficiaries. It should be noted that other types of combinations are still blocked from benefit (such households with adult siblings and/or other adult relatives). When do these groups get Act Up advocates to cry out about discrimination against family members who pool resources to share income and maintain one household? These households have existed for generations without complaint -- they never considered the benefits afforded married people to somehow be discriminatory against their choice of an alternative household.
.
Yet the Act Up crowd turns the tables and says that American marriage is essentially gay bigotry. While untrue, it has become an effective tactic. For thousands of years civilization has supported the married union of one male with one female as the preferred environment for having and raising children. Social science affirms this view. Now the Act Up crowd wishes to tear down these traditional understandings to espouse a living standard just short of "anything goes." This is a damaging disservice to the vast majority of American families and children. The puzzling part is this: if a gay couple has a civil union or similar form of private contract, how does gutting the traditional understanding of marriage create more esteem for that union? I can't help but sense that the only esteem is the retaliation meted out on the majority community by toppling an essential and meaningful pillar of their tradition.