Yes, the headline is same-sex marriage.
Just in case anyone has any doubt, the direction was elucidated at the Council of General Synod meeting held May 8-9:
Continuing from yesterday’s evening session, COGS members continued to discern what steps to take from the General Synod 2007’s assignments to the church around the issue of sexuality. Members had been asked to read FWMC’s Rothesay Report, which addressed one of these assignments: developing a theological rationale for same-sex marriage.
Note that we have moved from the stage of whether same-sex blessings are consistent with a Christian understanding of God’s purpose for sex, to coming up with a theological justification – excuse, really – for same sex marriage.
Since “same-sex blessings” has somehow, without warning, spontaneously morphed into “same-sex marriage”, some of the COGS attendees became restless:
Again, COGS members offered varied responses. Many were reluctant to bring forward a proposal about the revision of the marriage canon, and others commented that the church should concentrate on the issue of “blessing same-sex unions” as this was the concept considered earlier.
Fear not, a task force has been appointed to continue the – I can’t bring myself to say “conversation”, I really can’t – fuelling of the rampaging steamroller:
Ms. Marshall suggested that a small group of COGS members consider the next step for the conversations. The Primate, Archbishop Hiltz, further suggested that Bishop Colin Johnson, Lela Zimmer, and the Rev. John Steele form this group. The Primate reminded COGS that it was their responsibility to chart the path for discussions on human sexuality up to General Synod 2010.
“COGS considered the work that has been done in fulfilment of the resolutions of General Synod 2007 regarding sexuality and reached consensus that this is not the time to ask General Synod to amend the marriage canon to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples.”
The implication is that although “this is not the time”, the direction is set and the time is coming.
Not to say Ingham, Bird and cronies will go ahead anyway. No Covenant, no consequences!
When do I get the Anglican Church to bless my three wives?
I’d argue that it’s easier to compound a theology that allows blessing same-sex marriage than one that allows blessing any non-marital sexual relationship. This is given the legal context where a same-sex civil marriage exists.
Polygamy’s legal in certain countries. Should Anglicans in those countries adopt it?