"Why, I regularly wonder, is this particular issue so fraught? Am I wrong in understanding that there was not such talk of schism and the possibility of needing “alternative episcopal oversight” with alterations to allow marriage of divorcees, ordination of women, about which the Bible appears clear – possibly clearer. (I could continue: opening communion to all the baptised, dropping the requirement of the Office for clergy, having three bishops equally oversee the same geographic area, etc.)"
I offer a four point response to that question (which you can discuss there if you wish), but I note another possible response within a writing justifying the formation of the AMiE for the Church of England. In that writing, Richard Coekin says,
"The Bishop [of Southwark] was utterly pleasant and reasonable, and he understandably came to the meeting hoping to talk about issues on which we could agree and seek reconciliation. So did I. But we cannot accept oversight from any Bishop who is not orthodox on such fundamental matters of morality which imperil the salvation of the unrepentant.* I genuinely came to the meeting in hope of orthodox oversight. But Bishops are required to teach sound doctrine and refute error and we need leaders to be speaking up on these vital contemporary issues as clergy have to do each Sunday to their congregations. We need support from our leaders in Biblical mission. He has repeatedly insisted that the Diocese of Southwark is no different from the Diocese of London where we operate in glad and full submission to the oversight of the Bishop of London. I have repeatedly explained that the difference is that the Bishop of London has assured us publicly that he believes and teaches that homosexual practice is sin and can be quoted as so doing. We need leaders to whom we can look for support when the Bible is being challenged by our society." [Italics mine].Here then, within an expression of conservative evangelicalism on the other side of the globe is one reason why proceeding with the ordination of partnered gays is 'fraught' and may or does indeed raise the question of alternative episcopal oversight (or, alternatively departure through schism): to do so would be a sign of false, unorthodox teaching by the bishop concerned and thus affect the ability of those licensed to that bishop to receive oversight from that bishop. Logically one way forward is for oversight to be given by another (true teaching, orthodox) bishop (alternative episcopal oversight), another way forward is to resign one's licence (departure, which, I suppose, if done as a group, is schism).
In my view, here in ACANZP we likely have some within the community of conservative Anglicans who more or less would share what we could call 'the Coekin analysis'.
Note also that in my estimation I do not think 'the Coekin analysis' by any means would be shared by all conservatives in our church. For instance, whereas Coekin seems focused on the dioceses in which his network is working, some conservatives here working happily in one diocese could be disturbed by actions in another diocese which they disagreed with. For another instance, I think some conservatives in our church will remain under the oversight of their bishop whatever happens.
* Elsewhere in the article, Coekin elaborates what is meant at this point: "As a matter of conscience under the Biblical command to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” with those “who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality”, we cannot accept the oversight of a Bishop who refuses to teach such fundamental Biblical doctrine. The Bible is clear that un-repented wickedness (including homosexual practice) prevents us from inheriting the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The refusal of church leaders to teach this truth with compassion and clarity imperils the salvation of gay people we seek to love in our community by suggesting that repentance isn’t necessary."