Are there any General Synod Members who are also Mumsnetters?

[FeinCuroxiVooz]

A lot going on in General Synod - is anyone who is there also here?

I participated in the "Living in Love and Faith" process wholeheartedly, contributing my own lived experience to the group I met with and to the final questionnaire gathering, convinced that at last we would see change and inclusivity for gay and lesbian christians. The mealy-mouthed fudge that allows there to be a "blessing of your friendship" which isn't marriage is such a disappointment. I am actively looking for another church outside of anglicanism to be my main church now, though I will continue to attend an anglican church at least once a month as I am committed to do so with my god-daughter.

But I honestly don't understand why it's possible to still have this reluctance to have marriage equality when it's already perfectly fine to have a same-sex marriage if one member of the same-sex couple declares themselves to be the opposite gender (although no physical/surgical procedures are required to make such a declaration) and I have no problem with that but I don't get why there is still a distinction made, given that the concept of gender and the possibility of changing it by declaration is very obviously a matter of faith, that not everyone in the church would subscribe to. And if you don't subscribe to gender ideology then there's fundamentally no difference between two men getting married with both of them wearing suits, and two male people getting married where one is in a suit and the other is wearing a dress and asking people to use "she" pronouns (and obviously same goes for marriages between two female people). So if you allow the one then there is no rational or theological reason to not allow the other.

I hope the General Synod make some progress towards this mess making some sense.

I was under the impression that same sex marriage was only allowed in the church of England if the couple were of opposite sex at the time of marriage, but one transitioned at a later date, that marriage would still be valid, not that a woman could identify as male and marry a woman, or vice versa.

two different issues - a biological woman and a transwoman, or a biological man and a transman who got married prior to the transition will still be recognised as married by the church if one of them transitions, so that is the "same gender" marriage that is acknowledged by the church. The two people are biologically a heterosexual couple but have the same gender, and some people see this as a gay marriage (though other people would see it as a heterosexual marriage between people who don't conform to sex stereotypes)

But if someone has a GRC they can be married as part of a "heterosexual couple" where one is legally a man and the other is legally a woman, even though they both share the same biological sex. (I believe that, like with marriage of divorced people, an individual priest can decline to conduct the ceremony if it goes against their conscience)

I am not complaining about either of these - love is love and I fully support people who love each other getting married, and doing so in church if they have a faith that is important to them. What I find just weird is how much fighting and resistance to opening up marriage to all, given that it's already happening, both same-gender and same sex marriages are recognised depending on whether a GRC is granted before or after the ceremony, but is closed if no one involved feels the need for a GRC which is a legal instrument with no theological, scriptural or spiritual standing and may not be appropriate for some couples.

What I find just weird is how much fighting and resistance to opening up marriage to all.

Not weird, just simple homophobia. It wasn't long ago that the CofE were campaigning against same-sex marriage being legalised at all.

I was general synod till 2020.