It starts.
A golf club in Atlanta allows the spouses of its members equal access to the club facilities and also allows the spouse to inherit the membership should the member meet an untimely end. When gay members of the club complained that their partners were not extended the same benefits, the club told them those were privileges reserved for married couples only.
The gay members of the club took their complaint to the city, which had passed a non-discrimination ordinance in 2000. The club was found to be in violation of said ordinance and fines were levied, though none have as yet been collected.
The club is now suing the city, claiming the ordinance is unconstitutional in light of Georgia's recently passed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and prohibiting any relationship other than marriage from obtaining "the benefits of marriage." It is unlikely that the city will win the suit and the nondiscrimination ordinance will be struck down.
Here we have a fairly clear example of what a farce "compassionate conservatism" is. The club can claim they do not discriminate against homosexuals because they allow them membership in their club. And yet, when homosexual members asked to be treated in the same manner as their heterosexual comrades, all kinds of walls jump up. Exactly how does a golf club refusing gay couples equal privileges protect the institution of marriage? The only thing it protects is the club's bottom line.
Here also we see the hypocrisy evident in the occasional noises made from the right that civil unions might be an acceptable alternative. Every amendment that has passed specifically bans civil unions. As did the failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for which Bush continues to voice support. Remove the language forbidding "the legal incidents of marriage" from being given to any other relationship and the amendment will pass without so much as a hiccup. "Merely" reserving the word marriage as the special province of heterosexuals is not, however, the aim of conservative groups pressing legislation prohibiting gay marriage. Their aim is nothing less than making sure homosexuals always remain second class citizens. However you choose to justify it—God usually gets the blame—that is bigotry.
The assumption that continues to be offensive to me and many other homosexuals is that we and our relationships are inferior. I am still waiting to hear an explanation of why this is. Let me rephrase that. I am waiting for an explanation that is sound and reasonable. I have heard all kinds of explanations that barely count as excuses. Every one easily proven fallacious. I haven't heard one because one doesn't exist. There is no mojo associated with the union of a man and a woman. If there were, the divorce rate wouldn't be any where near what it is. Spousal and child abuse would all but cease to exist. More children would grow up well adjusted and productive members of society.
Perhaps that is why conservatives are fighting so hard to ensure that homosexual unions do not obtain any parity with heterosexual unions. It is too radical a departure from their way of thinking to admit that life is more about being human than straight or gay (or black or white or Jew or Arab.) It is interesting to note that those areas most vocal about the need to protect marriage are those areas where marriage is weakest. It's an age old human response: make yourself feel better by putting others down.