A final word

for now about the whole unnecessary and essentially manufactured 'gay marriage' fracas.

The logical flaw of those, like the present U.K. Government, who argue that any change in the law will only affect 'civil marriage' and will never lead to religious traditions being coerced into following suit, is that the ethical language used by all the advocates of a change in the State's marriage law, who constantly (and inappropriately) compare their campaign to those who fought against apartheid, simply will not allow of any 'morally acceptable' exceptions to the demand for full 'equality.' Can we imagine any religious tradition being allowed to discriminate in terms of race?
No, and rightly so. But the disingenuous reassurances of those who claim that gay marriage is only a limited matter of equality in terms of the civil law*, forget that, for its advocates, equality is indivisible. Period (as the Americans say.) As we know, the Anglican proponents of women's ordination would agree, hence their attempt to silence or eject all those who oppose them.
For the acolytes of equality, the arguments of traditionalists in defence of apostolicity in the Church, or, in politics, of  social conservatives in defence of a traditional understanding of marriage, are not only mistaken but 'offensive' and, as such, they should be prevented from even being heard, much less given practical expression in the life of the community.
The problem lies precisely with the unconstrained and unbalanced modern redefinition of 'equality' (as an activist agent to enforce and police social change, rather than the previously accepted principle of equality before the law which is 'merely' and conservatively protective of liberty) and with the uncritical and largely unchallenged acceptance of this form of 'equality' in contemporary society as being in itself something which is not only desirable but even essential to human well-being. So far, the social Marxists and their fellow travellers (whose ranks, regrettably, appear to include the Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party) have won the public debate hands down.
If we're that enamoured of the French Revolution, what about a campaign for equal billing for liberty and fraternity?

*They also, of course, forget that there is no such thing, strictly speaking, as 'religious marriage', (although canon law is in practice admittedly somewhat confusing on the subject)  marriage being part of the natural law.