The point, for the heads of global religions, is that you cannot have a sexual morality which fits both sides of the demographic divide. Either sex is primarily about children or it is primarily about love. The Anglican communion has ripped itself to bits about this; although it accepted contraception early and without much fuss, and came to terms with divorce when it became obvious that this was the only way to keep women members, the implication of sex being primarily an expression of love ends up with gay people being able to love each other sexually, and the traditionalists won't stand for that while the churches in the developed world won't, ultimately, settle for anything less.
But Brown's conclusions, though astute, are unexpected. Basically, hypocrisy is not a bad policy. It's less divisive in the long run. Now, is that possible?