Well, my position on the matter is intellectual rather than emotional. I admit that the 'two types of marriage' concept came as a complete surprise, mainly because it's such a stupid idea, but since it will lead to the inequalities mentioned in my post it's unlikely to reach royal assent.

km

Hogwash!

It received royal assent in Canada.

Pffft. I wouldn't be so foolish as to ever expect an emotional response from you, Mr. Spock. Your life is lacking, but that's your problem.

From what I read, km is saying that the legalese behind this bill could actually legislate for same sex marriage to continue to be a tier below male/female marriage in certain respects, and that he doesn't think this is a good thing. Did we all read the same post?

He doesn't think same sex marriage — and officially named as such — is a good thing. Period. He's said as much time and time again.

That's his negative take on a positive situation.

Broadly speaking, yes. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Art 14 prohibits discrimination in relation to Convention rights such as the right to marry in Art 16.

The prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage prevent genetic birth defects arising from sexual intercourse between persons who are too closely related. Since that applies to heterosexual spouses only there's no need to apply the same rules to same sex partners. Doing so unfairly discriminates against those who fall within the prohibited degrees so you finish up with a situation where some same sex partners can get married and others can't which will contravene Arts 14 and 16.

To get the Bill through Parliament in its present form Cameron will have to admit that he intends to derogate from those Articles and discriminate against some same sex partners.

km

Broadly speaking, I know there is a needle in here somewhere!

The legal technicalities are what he's worried about. And that's fine. But the visceral, emotional, human aspect — that's the hidden (and probably non-existent) needle.