The fine semantic distinctions you mention are, in my view, part of the strategy utilized by liberals to push the same-sex agenda. Blessings are, I think, more than “we’re kewl”. They convey more than acquiescence—more like a celebration and affirmation of the wonderfulness of such relationships. They’re said to be less than a marriage, but is there any practical difference?

Your final proposed resolution was the position of the Anglican Church until recently. Unfortunately, it was never felt necessary to spell that out. Now that the pro-homosexual lobby has garnered enough power to turn the tide in its favour, of course, it’s too late.

Your point is not without merit, but I don’t think it’ll get very far. The 2005 St Michael Report postulated the novel distinction between “core doctrine” and other doctrine, but failed to define either. Liberals immediately claimed that non-core doctrine is ipso facto not worth having a row over, and SSBs are therefore acceptable. Whether others object or not, liberals will press ahead on that basis.

Also, I’m not aware of any conservatives making the argument you put forward. Anglican Essentials, Anglican Network in Canada, and other orthodox Anglicans agree that A186 is a victory for the liberal agenda. I find it hard to disagree.