This is classic crazymaking - and if you don't know what crazymaking is, learn more about it here and here and here - and here. The classic crazymaking responses can be read here and here, but put your cup of tea down before you read them or watch the twisted interview with the celebrant, especially if you read the liturgy comparison first. Really, put the cup of tea down first.
Make no mistake about it, the point of this wedding is the equivalent of setting off an ecclesiastical bomb, especially just days before GAFCON begins. Perhaps the response from London and Canterbury should keep that fact in mind.
A breakaway group of conservative Anglican archbishops meets this week, threatening to split the worldwide communion over the issue of homosexuality, and the 10‑yearly Lambeth Conference starts next month. The future of the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion hangs by one of Dr Williams's whiskers.
Anglicans in Africa and Asia are infuriated enough with the liberal North American churches, where openly homosexual clergy and church blessings for same-sex couples are now commonplace. But the news that two male priests used a traditional wedding liturgy, involving the exchange of rings and vows, in a Church of England church could push them to the edge.
The marriage calls into question the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury – one of four fundamental points of unity for the worldwide communion – and tears at the very heart of Anglicanism.
Only three years ago, Dr Williams flew to meet the African archbishops to reassure them that the Church's teaching on sexuality would not be compromised by the introduction of the Civil Partnerships Act. The Church issued guidelines allowing clergy to register their relationships on the condition that they assured their bishop that they would abstain from sex. It said homosexual couples should not be given formal services to celebrate their relationship.
The archbishop stressed that priests who broke these rules would be disciplined. However, a number of clergy have since performed so called "blessing services" for homosexual couples. These are significantly different from wedding services: they involve no wedding rite; there is no exchange of vows, no bridesmaids or pageboys. Most are carried out quietly. Despite being controversial, not one has resulted in disciplinary proceedings.
The fact that one vicar has actually conducted a proper wedding service, using such traditional liturgy and furthermore, between two priests, makes the issue impossible to ignore.
Even Gene Robinson, the homosexual cleric whose appointment as a bishop in the United States triggered the current crisis, had a relatively low-key blessing service in comparison with the pageantry of this wedding.
Some may try to argue that the relationship is not legally recognised as a marriage. But there can be no doubt that in every other respect this service constituted a church wedding.
The Rev Martin Dudley, who presided at the service, is understood to have received a plea from the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, not to offer such a ceremony. His decision to ignore this request leaves the Church's guidelines in tatters and brings the Anglican Communion to the brink of irreversible schism.
The eyes of the Anglican world will now be on Dr Williams.
The archbishop will be expected to act by showing strong leadership. This will test his authority and potentially shape the future of Anglicanism.
While the pro-gay lobby will argue that this wedding is part of being an inclusive Church, the traditionalists claim that homosexual behaviour is a sin and conceding on this would be to undermine the authority of the Bible.
It is set to ignite a battle for the soul of the Church.
UPDATE: The Bishop of London, the Rt. Rev. Richard Chartres has now ordered an investigation by the Archdeacon of London. Read more about it here.