It didn't take long to get a peculiarly vivid example of what I was addressing here.
The Living Church has published an analysis of the San Joaquin defection in light of the Southern Cone's own Constitution and Canons, which appear to establish that both the SC Constitution's limitation on its geographical territory, and the canon's limitation on the retirement age for bishops, would exclude San Joaquin and John-David Schofield from their purported realignment. Mark the sequel: explicit avowals that these breaches of the canons are perfectly right and legitimate because, after all, they are done in the name of protecting the Godly from the "heresy" of TEC.
Now, first, let's be clear: I am unaware of any even arguably heretical theological position taken by TEC. One may argue that the ordination of Bishop Robinson was irregular, or improper, or even sinful, but it's not, by definition, heretical. But even if I did not vehemently reject the theological positions of these folks, I would quarrel mightily with this "rules-only-apply-to-YOU" position.
If rules don't govern people who disagree, then they are useless. The reasserters who fault the Presiding Bishop for allegedly infringing the canons of TEC by not recognizing the Standing Committee of San Joaquin after they decided that they remainied in place in TEC now excuse violations of the Southern Cone's canons because, after all, their cause is just. The problem with that, however, is that it means there is no mechanism for resolving disagreements--even in terms of negotiating a separation. After all, if the reasserters believe they (and they alone) are justified in breaking canons, constitutions, and ordination vows, then how can those who do not share their views trust any representation they make with respect to property, personnel, or any other issue?
Such individuals are fit for no company but their own; only those who agree with them can be in communion with them, because the only language they will speak is that of uniformity in all things--or abject surrender.
What is under challenge is not merely a belief about homosexuality, nor even about how to read Scripture. It is the very justification for an Anglican Communion--that a broad, culturally and theologically diverse association of churches can unite those who disagree on many matters, for churchmanship to theology, but hold in common a Christian faith, and can cherish those with whom they disagree. A "holy catholic Church"? Not if these individuals have their way. In their eagerness to secure the first attribute, as they see it, they would wholly extirpate the latter.