When Modernists Do Not Care About Church Teachings They Do Not Like

While the Episcopal Church continues to grapple with the "blessing" of same sex unions, and in the case of California and Massachusetts, the Church of England has a couple of priests that have decided, as only modernists know how to do, that they know best http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2130668/Male-priests-marry-in-Anglican-church's-first-gay-'wedding'.html.
This is the Mother church of the Anglican communion. This is the linage where the Episcopal Church comes from. It is once again the direct flaunting of what the Church teaches and breaking tradition that these modernists do not agree with.
The modernists do not like the traditionalist view that marriage, Christian marriage, is between one man and one woman. Since they do not like it, they just feel that they are so enlightened, so "prophetic" that they know better than the rest and just make up their rules as they go along.
In the case of the Episcopal Church here in the United States, the modernists suddenly finds rules important when traditionalist churches, fed up with the modernists shoving down the average parishioner's throats their agenda, leave the Church. They don't like losing the property and are really insulted when said traditionalists have bishops from other Anglican Communion churches become their bishops. See, when the modernists see a threat from the traditionalists, they like to talk about polity and that these bishops are usurping their authority, yada, yada, yada. And when that does not scare the bejesus out of the traditionalists, the army of lawyers the Episcopal Church has under their wing then begin legal proceedings to get "their" property back.
The fact that two obviously gay priests believe their relationship is the equivalent to Christian marriage between one man and one woman shows that they do not care nor read the said Holy Bible that they are ordained to teach the layman and laywomen about. The Holy Bible clearly says that the mystery of marriage is the joining of man and woman as one. Two opposites. That relationship is part of the mystery of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his church. All other relationships are not equal to this. It does not mean that all relationships are not important, but that God himself revealed that the perfect one is between man and woman.
Now, as far as civil law is concerned, the reason that the civil union concept is appropriate because the same-sex relationship is granted importance and protective of couples in areas in which in the past they were denied such things as power of attorney, property going to a partner when one goes with God and clearly appropriate in terms of civil authorities recognizing, like it or not, that these couples do have some rights and protections.
But, and this is important. When a church deems such relationships the same as the Christian understanding of marriage between one man and one woman, it demeans what marriage is. Thus, at some point, one can make the argument that polygamy as practiced in Old Testament times is A-OK and that the church should recognize that as equal. Or other absolutely bad relationships. Hey, what would be wrong for a brother and sister to marry? How about a father who loses his wife and has a daughter, what is wrong with that?
It is not trying to make same-sex relationships sound deviant. It is just pointing out a reality that the proponents do not want to grapple with. It is something that proponents need to explain to the rest of us.
Clearly, this is a shot across the bow and now, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams needs to address this and now.