Anglican Church of Canada declines same-sex marriage by one vote

Literally. One vote short from one priest.

The Church is meeting in General Synod in Toronto and the most significant matter for discussion was a change to the Marriage Canon to permit same-sex marriage.

Since the proposal involved a matter of doctrine, it had to be approved by the three orders: the laity, the priests and deacons, and the Bishops.

And, as a matter of doctrine, it needed to be approved by a super-majority in all three houses.

Yesterday, the vote was held:

Bishops: 68.42%

Priests/Deacons: 66.23% - 0.43% shy of the 66.66% needed.

Laity: 72.22%

Based on the numbers of ballots cast, that 0.43% amounted to one vote short from one priest or deacon.

Personally, the surprise to me was the Bishops voting for it, as there was a straw poll taken at a meeting of the Bishops a few months ago that suggested it would not have the 2/3 majority.

Anglican Church of Canada declines same-sex marriage by one vote

Who was the Anglican Church of Canada going to marry? The Canadian Methodist Church?*

*Snake-handling Canadian Baptists are more fun.

Thanks for the update, NP. Let it never be said that one vote doesn’t make a difference. When might the question come up for reconsideration?

Three years to the next General Synod, plus to pass, doctrinal changes have to be passed at two successive Synods by the same super-majorities. So a change is at least six years away.

However, some of the bishops from the larger metropolitan dioceses have asserted that since the Canon does not expressly forbid same-sex marriage they have the episcopal authority to permit it within their own dioceses, so stay tuned!

Whoops! Recount! They found one vote and now the motion has passed!

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2016/07/12/some-canadian-anglican-bishops-to-approve-same-sex-marriage-despite-church-ruling.html?client=safari#

That would be bigamy. The Canadian Methodists already married the Presbyterians.

Yes. And the United Church permits (although it does not require) its ministers to officiate at same-sex weddings, and its Moderator is an openly gay man, married now to a man (although he was apparently married to a woman some years ago).

:: stereotypical cheery Italian voice ::

That’s not bigamy, that’s big-a-you!

Wow . . . just WOW! :slight_smile:

Okay, I’ve got some more details.

Short version - it’s DieBold’s fault!

Okay, not really, but a computer glitch.

It wasn’t a secret ballot, because the Synod is a deliberative body. Votes are recorded, just like in Parliament or Congress.

They were using some fancy computer voting system. Each delegate went to one of the machines, logged in and voted. The computer had been pre-programmed with all the delegate’s names and which of the three orders they each belonged to, so the votes would automatically be tabulated by name and order.

After the vote was announced to be one vote short, supporters of the motion asked for a print-out of all the votes.

They reviewed the tabulations and discovered that one delegate, a priest, had been improperly registered as laity.

He had voted in favour of the measure, but his vote had been listed as cast by a lay delegate.

Once the error was discovered, they corrected his registration and his vote was transferred from the laity tally to the clergy tally. Even with the vote taken out of the laity tally, there were still enough votes to meet the two-thirds requirement for the laity.

Adding his vote to the clergy tally, however, pushed it over two-thirds, and the Primate declared the motion carried.

And the ultimate irony is that the delegate who had been improperly registered was the General Secretary, who had overall responsibility for the smooth running of General Synod! Oops.

He publicly apologised to the General Synod for the monumental balls-up.

(Okay, he may not have used that particular phrase, but that was the gist of it. )

So, motion passed, but because it amends doctrine, it has to be approved a second time by the next General Synod, three years from now, by the same triple super-majorities.

Talk about a monumental facepalm :smiley:

Did Steve Harvey have some role in this year’s synod?

Canadian social trends being what they are, that shouldn’t be a problem.

You can always tell the True Church. It’s doctrine is decided by majority rule.

But does it know the distinction between “it’s” and “its”?

I always can tell when someone has pooped in a thread.

It was literally a clerical error.

(Stolen from a friend on Facebook; I’m not witty enough to have come up with that on my own!)

:smiley:

Oh, that’s good.

Trends being what they are, the question is will there even be an Anglican Church of Canada long enough to have more synods. It loses about 20% of its members every decade and the average age of members is 65.

The Truth, of course, is that all churches have doctrines which are decided either by majority rule or by executive fiat. So much depends on which translation of the Bible you choose to use (God does not have a recorded opinion on Revised Standard Version vs. King James vs. the Good News Bible etc. etc. etc.), or which books of the Bible are considered canonical (again, someone or someones other than God made this decision).

That’s before we get into questions of what-did-this-Greek-term-actually-mean and is-it-possible-that-this-story-was-intended-metaphorically-rather-than-literally. If it isn’t obvious, decisions on these things are made not by God, but by religious leaders, often acting as parts of councils or committees.

Some folks would like us to believe that there exist truly “Bible-based churches.” But if you look even a little bit closely, there are committees, oligarchies, and individual figures who have consistently made decisions about what the Bible even is–let alone what it means. Reports of true “Bible-based churches” are (sorry) apocryphal.

Northern Piper and other Canadians of the Anglican persuasion–congrats, and welcome to the club! (About time, too! :))
–Ulf, American Episcopalian