Some Anglicans are saying with straight faces and confident hearts:
(1) It is un-Anglican to have a Covenant (because, e.g., its not the way we have done things before, or we already have enough binding documents, or Anglican simply have fellowship together without basis in written documents).
This seems to imply that there is something about being Anglican which is unchangeable.
(2) It is Anglican to embrace change - we did it in Henry VIII's day and have been doing it ever since - so it is merely another change to embrace a revised doctrine of marriage.
Propositions (1) and (2) cannot be reconciled. Either Anglicanism contains within itself mechanisms for change or it does not!
It is in fact true that to be Anglican is to embrace change. But change, according to the model laid down in the Reformation, should not be repugnant to Scripture. Thus when disagreement arises about what is or is not repugnant to Scripture, then some arbiter needs to be found. The events of 2003 exposed the lack of an Anglican arbiter. It is proper for Anglicans to respond to this deficiency and seek to remedy it.
The Covenant is the Anglican response; it is a proper Anglican course to pursue it's establishment. We should agree to it, and then embark on a comprehensive discussion of the doctrine of marriage held in common across the Communion according to the parameters set by the Covenant.