The Anglican Church of Canada’s commission on the marriage canon has produced its report. Insomniacs may find relief from their suffering by reading all 65 pages here.

The commission had no intention – and was never asked – to determine whether same-sex marriage is in accord with God’s intent for marriage as revealed in the Bible. Instead, it worked diligently to demonstrate that same-sex marriage is “theologically possible”:

It is, he added, one of three “logical possibilities” being put forward by the commission, and something of a middle way between the other two. The other two possibilities, according to the report, are, on the one hand, to see same-sex marriages as an “undifferentiated” form of Christian marriage, essentially identical to heterosexual marriages; and, on the other, to see them as “blessed partnerships” rather than covenants before God.

The commission said it arrived at a conclusion that it is “theologically possible to extend the marriage canon to include same-sex couples, without thereby diminishing, damaging, or curtailing the rich theological implications of marriage as traditionally understood.”

The idea appears to be to remove the boundaries that presently constrain marriage without changing the definition of marriage. It doesn’t take much effort to realise that this is a clumsy sleight of hand. There is nothing that is not to a large extent defined by its boundaries; remove them and you are left with – as in music when everyone plays any note they want no matter how irrelevant – nothing but noise:

Nicholls also stressed that the report does not suggest ways of changing the definition of marriage as it is currently laid out in church law. Rather, it is looking at changing those parts of the marriage canon that restrict marriage to male-female relationships.

“We’re talking about the same vows, the same purpose, and the same definition of marriage. None of that has changed,” said Nicholls.

The assurances made to conservatives during the 2004 General Synod that same-sex blessings would not lead to same-sex marriage were, as anyone with any sense knew, barefaced lies:

Given that the Canadian church already affirmed the “integrity and sanctity” of homosexual relationships at its General Synod in 2004, the commission said its report accepted that the current definition of marriage could be expanded to include same-sex couples.

Fred Hiltz is worried that the church might “come apart over this”. Perhaps Hiltz has had no access to the Internet for the last 10 years and is unaware that the church “came apart” over this quite some time ago. There were even lawsuits; did no one tell him?

Does it keep me awake at night? Yes, it sure does. I do not want to see the church divide over this. The St. Michael Report used the helpful language of “core doctrine” and other kinds of doctrine. Core doctrine meaning the kind that’s reflected in the creeds of the church. They [Primate’s Theological Commission members] said, in the St. Michael Report, that they didn’t believe the blessing of same-sex unions was a communion-dividing issue. I kind of think about that language still, at the back of my mind. I would hope that the church would not come apart over this.

The ”conscience clause” that permits clergy to opt out of marrying same-sex couples could, of course, be challenged in a civil court. Supposedly, the clause would hold:

The chancellor of CoGS, Canon David Jones, noted the “extraordinarily credible” legal opinion quoted in the report, suggesting that invoking the conscience clause could withstand legal challenge.

The question is, if a priest is sued for refusing to marry a same-sex couple, would the Anglican Church of Canada spend the money necessary to defend him? I would not count on it. Dean Peter Wall from the liberal-extremist Diocese of Niagara is already muttering against the conscience clause:

Dean Peter Wall of the diocese of Niagara felt that the conscience clause goes too far.

“The drafters of the resolution were very generous—I think to a fault—with their interpretation of the word ‘congregation.’” He said, explaining that the Anglican Church “has always been based on synodical and episcopal leadership and direction,” and that he is “concerned about congregationalism,” and the possibility of an individual church telling its priest whom he or she can or cannot marry.

If voters fall obediently into line with current prejudices – theological possibilities, to use ecclesiastical jargon – the marriage canon will be changed at the 2019 General Synod, by which time no one outside and few inside the church – other than gay clergy and a handful of octogenarian conservatives – will care.