General Synod Didn’t NEED to change the Marriage Canon (But They Should Have)

One of the things that annoyed me in the wake of General Synod was the way the media slanted the story of what had happened. Headlines talked about how the Anglican Church had rejected same-sex marriage approvals. There was talk of dioceses proceeding ‘despite the national vote’. This kind of talk clouds the issue, in that it misrepresents what General Synod was trying to do.

The Marriage Canon didn’t need to change in order to allow same-sex marriages.

Rather than saying ‘same-sex couples can get married,’ the resolution that was defeated was that General Synod ‘declare that Canon XXI (On Marriage in the Church) applies to all persons who are duly qualified by civil law to enter into marriage.’ It was not about changing the Canon, but about how it ought to be interpreted. The Chancellor of General Synod has pointed out that:

1. the existing Canon does not define marriage

2. it does not specifically prohibit same-sex marriage

3. not passing the motion would not be the same as passing the opposite motion (that is, to prohibit same-sex marriage)

This is tricky, since it involves an argument from silence. How should we interpret the Canon? Does it forbid anything that it does not specifically allow, or does it allow anything it does not specifically forbid? This is the heart of the ‘local option’. Some bishops and dioceses believe that since Canon XXI does not specifically forbid same-sex marriages, it is reasonable to proceed with them, and have authorized marriage equality in their local context. Others believe that unless Canon XXI were to specifically allow them, there is no grounds for anyone, in their own diocese or otherwise, to proceed.

In endorsing the affirmations of ‘A Word to the Church,’ however, General Synod has agreed and accepted that there are diverse understandings of the Marriage Canon, and that bishops and synods who have authorized liturgies have done so on the assumption that the Canon does not prohibit same-sex marriage. That’s not to say that General Synod agreed that the Canon doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriage, but it did agree that the Canon can be interpreted more than one way.

Bishops who have authorized (and who will authorize) same-sex marriage liturgies are responding in a way that General Synod has agreed is a legitimate understanding of the Marriage Canon.

The important thing to note is that bishops who have authorized same-sex marriages are The important thing to note is that bishops who have authorized same-sex marriages are not doing so despite General Synod’s decision. They are responding to the pastoral needs of their dioceses in a way that General Synod has agreed is legitimate. In such dioceses, no one could be forced to marry a same-sex couple against their conscience, but those who are prepared to cannot be punished for doing so.

Would it have been better if the Marriage Canon had changed? Of course it would. It would have brought a greater degree of clarity to a blurry situation, and would have sent a definite message to a world watching carefully to see how the Church would respond to this question. But the fact that the Canon didn’t change doesn’t make it any less unreasonable for people to interpret the Canon in such a generous way.