A recent objection here (and much made around the traps) is that the Covenant will divide the Communion into first and second class member churches (to say nothing of dividing Anglicans into two classes). A few notes might be made in response.
(1) There are 'relational consequences' envisioned as a possible (not certain) outcome of one member church raising a matter about another church. But do 'relational consequences' amount to dividing the Communion into first and second class churches? Currently there are some relational consequences for TEC but I do not see TEC feeling it has become a second-class church as a result. (Incidently, one of those consequences has been unstitched according to this announcement here).
(2) Feeling uncomfortable about the possibility of first and second class churches throws an emotive argument (which is no argument) into the debate, but the argument is about whether the Anglican churches of the globe wish to make common accord in a serious manner and what might enable churches committing themselves to that common accord to be accountable to one another. If that is what we want to do, then we do it, whatever the consequences may feel like. I do not object to our church having a disciplinary canon on the basis that if I incurred its force and received a disciplinary measure as a consequence then I would feel I had become a second-class priest. I either object to it because I do not believe in such a canon or I accept it (and do my best to avoid incurring a charge on the basis of it).
(3) There is a variation in the complaint, which focuses on a comment the ABC once made about a two-tier Communion (where one tier are signers and the other tier are non-signers). Fairly often I have made the point here that I do not see this as a realistic possibility: if insufficient churches sign up (i.e. below 80% though I suggest 90+% signing up would be much better) then the Covenant is a dead duck. I guess, in a sense, I agree with this complaint: there should not be a two tier Communion. But my reasoning is not about the existence of the Covenant but about the commitment to it required to make it viable.
(4) A grizzle about two classes or two tiers of Anglicans overlooks the current situation in which there have been relational consequences to actions with the result that two classes or tiers of Anglicans have been created. Take the situation in TEC since 2003: whether we look at the coming into being of ACNA alongside TEC, or the way in which conservatives remaining in TEC have been pushed to the sidelines (and in some cases, especially +Mark Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina, harried and pursued as a kind of quarry in the sights of the PB's gun), two classes and/or tiers of American Anglicans have been created. Of course the complainers about the Covenant will never admit to these facts about the situation. Here in New Zealand this is where we are heading: those who do not agree with the blessing of same sex relationships or the ordination of people in same sex relationships will be marginalised if not excluded from our church.
We have a terrific challenge as Anglicans, in North America, in the Communion and in these islands: how to be a genuinely inclusive church. It saddens me that advocates for the (so called) full inclusion of the LGBT community offer no recognition that they way in which the advocacy for this is framed it necessarily means the marginalization if not exclusion of those who wish to maintain a biblical and traditonal teaching re sexuality.
Even without an Anglican Covenant there is plenty of scope within contemporary Anglicanism for the creation of first and second class Anglicans, for the dividing of Anglicans into first and second tiers. Or should that be 'tears'?