The failure of the vote to amend the marriage canon will make no practical difference to same-sex couples who want to marry in an Anglican church. Dioceses that are inclined to permit same-sex marriage are going ahead regardless of the vote.

That is still not enough for those in the church who favour same-sex marriage, as we saw from their extraordinary histrionics at synod when the results were announced. Nothing but complete affirmation will satisfy; just as at the end of Stalin’s speeches, the applause was unanimous and sustained because everyone was afraid of being the first to stop. I strongly suspect that, had the vote passed, the next hurdle for the alphabet crew would be to compel priests who disagree with same-sex marriage to perform them anyway in much the same way as the attempt to force Christian bakers to embellish their cakes with gay propaganda.

Although the vote didn’t pass, there will be another synod in three years. That gives the ACoC plenty of time to change the rules so that it passes next time.

From here:

One of Canada’s largest Christian denominations will spend the next three years considering whether to change its governance structure amid outrage that just two bishops’ votes stood in the way of having same-sex marriage recognized by the Church’s laws.

Some in the Anglican Church of Canada say the current system to alter doctrine and policy — which requires a two-thirds majority from three groups of delegates — unfairly gives the most voting power to a small group of bishops.

The denomination’s outgoing senior officers in charge of its tri-annual policy meeting said Tuesday that the Church will look at ways it can change its governance structure between now and the next General Synod in 2022.

From here:

The Anglican archbishop for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island has declared he would perform same-sex marriages and permit other churches in his diocese to do the same.

Archbishop Ron Cutler’s declaration comes after the church’s national body narrowly voted not to recognize same-sex marriages late last week.

“There is, I think, a majority of people within the diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island who are in favour of widening our understanding of marriage to include people in the LGBTQ2+ community,” Cutler told CBC’s Mainstreet on Monday.

Cutler, who spoke during a phone interview from Vancouver, said there were “cries of anguish” followed by “three or four minutes of stunned silenced” following the vote.

I’m waiting for a diocese to announce that it will honour the vote, although it’s possible that those who will (the Arctic, for example) might just keep quiet about it.

The Anglican Church of Canada voted down a motion to amend the Marriage Canon to permit the marriage of same-sex couples. The naïve among us might be tempted to conclude, “that’s it, then, no same-sex marriages in the ACoC.”

That would be a serious underestimation of the influence of the juggernaut that has taken over the Anglican Church of Canada.

The highlighted section of the statement below explicitly gives permission for dioceses to perform same-sex marriages: just as if the vote to change the marriage canon had passed.

The vote was meaningless. Worse, it was a hoax, a deception, a lie, an exercise which, if it succeeded, would legitimise same-sex marriage and, if it failed, still legitimise same-sex marriage.

Why would anyone take anything this preposterous excuse for a church does or says seriously?

Looking on the bright side, the motion to stop using single use plastic passed; that means no nametags in 2022.

From here:

We, members of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada, see the pain and anguish inflicted on LGBTQ2S+ people, on members of the General Synod, across the Church, and in the world, as a result of the work and the vote on the matter of Canon 21, concerning marriage. We see your tears, we hear your cries, and we weep with you. We have caused deep hurt. We are profoundly sorry.

Although the bishops are not of one mind, we look with hope to the “Word to the Church” and its affirmations which General Synod 2019 overwhelmingly approved on Friday, July 12.

We are walking together in a way which leaves room for individual dioceses and jurisdictions of our church to proceed with same-sex marriage according to their contexts and convictions, sometimes described as “local option.”

Together, we affirm the inherent right of Indigenous peoples and communities to spiritual self-determination in their discernment and decisions in all matters.

Although we as bishops are not able to agree, in the name of Jesus Christ, we commit to conduct ourselves “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:2-3).

Read it all here:

“Our children are crying.”

That was how Primate Fred Hiltz—paraphrasing the observation of delegate Michael Chartrand—described the pain in the room following the failure of the 42nd General Synod to pass a resolution amending the marriage canon, which would have allowed for the solemnization of same-sex marriage.

“Those words are going to haunt the Anglican Church for a long time,” says Sydney Brouillard-Coyle, a youth delegate from the diocese of Huron who identifies as gender non-conforming, queer and asexual. Though members of General Synod had long been preparing for upheaval after the vote on July 12 no matter the outcome, when the results finally came, the anguish it caused for LGBTQ Anglican youth almost defies description.

Waiting for the vote results to come in, Lyds Keesmaat-Walsh—a member of the Church of the Redeemer in Toronto who identifies as non-binary, agender and transmasculine, queer in their sexuality—and who, like Brouillard-Coyle, prefers they/them pronouns—was “overcome with fear like I have never known before, and I’ve gone through multiple coming-outs.”

When the results appeared, and it became clear that the resolution had failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in the Order of Bishops, Keesmaat-Walsh, 20, felt a grief that they had only experienced once before, when a close friend was killed in a shooting.

“The sound that came out of my mouth was not a sound I knew I could make,” they say. “And I collapsed. I completely collapsed into Bishop Andrew [Asbil]’s chest. I’m very grateful he was there.”

As the tears flowed, seeing a delegate nearby that they believed had not voted in favour of the motion proved too much to bear. “I looked across the table … and I knew I could not stay in this room any longer. And I got up and I fled.”

The pain felt by queer youth delegates may have been particularly intense, but it was not unique. Across General Synod, pain and grief were the overwhelming emotions that followed the vote, both among those who voted for the resolution and those who voted against it.

Even as the church struggled with the aftermath of the vote, new developments suggested that the matter is far from over. Almost immediately after the vote, delegates came up to the microphone to ask what their options were for reconsidering a decision at General Synod. LGBTQ youth delegates led a protest at the next day’s worship service before the election of a new primate. And many voices indicate they will continue their struggle for the Anglican Church of Canada to recognize same-sex marriage.

Before anyone accuses me of not understating teenage girls, let alone “non-binary, agender and transmasculine, queer in their sexuality” girls, let me say, “you’re right, I don’t understand teenage girls”.

But I do have teenage granddaughters and I’ve learned to recognise a tantrum when I see one and I know that giving in to the tantrum is the wrong thing to do.

I remember one of my granddaughters, after wearing herself out shrieking, falling on my shoulder sobbing, “my life is over”. I can’t remember what caused her to make this radical diagnosis and I don’t suppose she can either. I patted her on the back and said, “there, there, it isn’t as bad as all that” while privately musing on whether tantrums were a necessary or contingent aspect of being a teenage girl.

In case anyone is thinking I am heartless and emotionless, let me reassure you, it is not so. Sometime after the rejection of the marriage canon amendment, I too, found myself crying, screaming and running out of the room in despair. It was when Roger Federer lost the Wimbledon final.

To be serious for a moment – now I’ve wiped the tears off my keyboard: adults are supposed to be calmer and wiser than teenagers. No parent in his right mind gives in to teenage tantrums; yet that is exactly what is happening at synod. Since the result of vote has caused so much pain, everyone is scurrying about trying to find a way of having another vote to produce the right result.

It is theology by tantrum :

Options for reconsideration
Following the vote on July 12, delegates went to the microphones and asked what options General Synod had for reconsidering a decision made.
There are two ways synod can do so, Chancellor David Jones explains to the Journal. In the first method, once the discussion of a matter has been concluded, members can ask for reconsideration, which would require a two-thirds majority of the house.

The second method is that members could bring forward a somewhat different motion, but dealing with the same general topic. Because General Synod has now passed the deadline for bringing a motion, rules would require a two-thirds majority of the house in order to commit a late motion.

Since same-sex marriage is a question of doctrine, an objection might be why the Anglican Church of Canada would not require two readings at successive General Synods to re-examine the matter. The answer is that the amending formula, as stated in the Declaration of Principles, only requires two readings at successive General Synods if the resolution is a matter of doctrine in a canon.

The process that led up to the July 12 vote started at the 2013 Joint Assembly with a resolution, C003, to amend the marriage canon so that it would apply equally to all, i.e. both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

“If it hadn’t said ‘amend the canon,’ if it simply said [to] bring a motion that a minister in the Anglican Church of Canada may solemnize a same-sex marriage, it wouldn’t have needed two readings and it wouldn’t have needed two-thirds,” Jones says.

As the chancellor points out in a 2016 memorandum, Canon XXI on marriage does not define marriage, nor does it explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage.

Conservative synod members have criticized this memorandum. Royal, for instance, says that “accepting the chancellor’s memo sets us on a dangerous path as a church, because what it does is it allows us to do things that are not explicitly prohibited in canons. It’s an argument from silence…. That’s a dangerous precedent to set, and I disagree with the chancellor’s memo very, very strongly.” Parsons told the chancellor directly in 2016 that it was “wrong for him to put out that memo.”

Jones, however, insists that such criticisms “are assuming that the canon prohibits [same-sex marriage]. The canon doesn’t. Show me where it does. It doesn’t. Read the canon.”

In light of the canon text, church rules and the fact that 76% of people in the room on July 12 voted in favour of the resolution, Jones draws the following conclusion about the marriage debate: “I don’t think it’s over at all.”

He suggests a number of possible scenarios going forward. Since many dioceses already solemnize same-sex marriages, other dioceses “that have held back…will go ahead” and bless same-sex marriages. A motion could come before the present General Synod while it is still in session, or the matter may come before the next General Synod.

“It may come in a very simple format,” Jones says. “It may simply be that this General Synod declares that a minister may solemnize the marriages of any two persons authorized to marry by civil law.”

After reading over the article again, I started to suspect this whole episode was a concoction of Titania McGrath. But it can’t be; not even (s)he is that inventive.