Since he is rarely in Durham, I guess he has a lot of time spent in airport lobbies and on actual aircraft jetting around the Communion sharing his bias, and so has all this time on his hands to write such trash. Idle hands are the Devil's workshop.

Get thee home +Durham, and actually do an honest days work and come to know the folks of your See, so that you are not so often opening your mouth to merely switch feet!

Although I initially read this posting regarding the proposal made by the Bishop of Durham for "immediate action" with dismay, I wonder if it is a (?hopeful) sign that the attempt to use the Anglican Covenant process to excommunicate TEC from the rest of the Anglican Communion is cruising towards failure? Certainly, TEC's actions at GC seem to have aroused a response in the sometimes-sleepy-appearing houses of our C of E brothers and sisters, and this would certainly be a cause for fear for the conservatives who really do know (and hope to keep secret) just how many LGBT persons there are in their church structures and what would happen if they suddenly ceased to work and function.
Additionally, although I felt at first that the "two tier solution" of ABC +Rowan's recent reflection was insulting and harmful, such a "solution" would really "gut" the proposed Anglican Covenant's "purpose" as conceived by the conservative schismatics--to make TEC the unequivocal and official "outsider" and reverse the self-imposed exile that they (the schismatics) have chosen. If there is a "two tier" structure, then the conservatives in the so-called "first tier" can have at it to "discipline themselves" and will have in paper NO AUTHORITY to act in/over the independent province of TEC as it will be "officially" outside their first-tier structural authority. TEC can continue to participate in all of the really meaningful structures and actions of the Anglican Communion and live out our international mission in the gospel just as fully as we did before – now "officially" without worry of any "meaningful" censure.
I also might speculate that a "second tier" status could be adopted voluntarily and conscientiously as a form of civil protest to the anti-LGBT positions held by many soon-to-be "first tier" Anglicans. Should we not insist that, if we cannot bring our LGBT sisters and brothers to the "front of the bus" in the Anglican Communion, then we will join them, prayerfully, defiantly and proudly in the "back of the bus?"
As the debate continues, it seems increasingly clear to me that the anti-TEC, anti-LGBT persons in the Anglican Communion have less and less to contribute to "listening" and "discussion." I believe that I am getting a feel for their "doublespeak." They want to "do the theology" on LGBT persons that "has not been done." Real meaning: "We don't have any useful theological perspective to offer other than 'we've always done it this way,' and all we can do is keep shouting this same thing louder and LOUDER in the hope that we can drown out everyone else." The attempt to create a new Anglican hierarchy is more of the same thing. They know that they have really "lost" this debate (as they are out of responses), and their only hope is to squash as much as possible of the opposition by brute force. This will never work, no matter how hard they try to make it happen. No one is in the church now by obligation but only voluntarily. Heavy-handedness will simply empty the pews and the faithful will go elsewhere, maybe even outside of Christianity.