Adoption: Doublethink

Is Welsh secretary, David Jones, attempting to lead some kind of double political life from within the Conservative party? After a TV interview and a clarifying statement, he still doesn't seem quite sure what he's talking about.
Jones says that his reason for voting against gay marriage was that "clearly" gay couples "cannot provide a warm and safe environment" in which to raise children. His clarification: "Since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite-sex partners." However, Jones says that he is not against civil partnerships, or gay couples adopting, and he has "people in my life who are important to me who are gay".
What kind of skewed mindset thinks gay couples should have civil partnerships and adoption rights, then balks at marriage? It's like a horse that's just won the "gay issues" Grand National, but then trips over a bucket.
There's no point rising to the "biological" bait. Some gay parents have biological children, while some heterosexual couples can't. Should the former be termed "honorary straights" and the latter reclassified as "gay" and barred from marriage? Parenting is not a slave to biology anyway. Many heterosexual families (adoptive, step, etc) aren't all biologically linked to each other – do we quote the Bible at them? As for the lack of "a warm and safe environment", does Jones think that gay people take their children clubbing or send them out, Fagin-style, to score amyl nitrate? 

The ever brilliant Barbara Ellen writing in her Observer column.

The Stonewall Awards could give themselves some credence by, at the very least, nominating Barbara Ellen for Journalist Of The Year, instead of the usual daft buggers.
Just a thought.