Hm. Gotta say I agree with the Salty Vicar's complaint about this. Mr. Kennedy paints himself into a corner. There's a reason why "Tradition" is such an important part of Anglican practice, and perhaps he doesn't understand what that means.
While it's true that we should not hold any doctrine that cannot be proved through Scripture, we should also not forget (as the Pharisees did, for example) that God Himself is the supreme authority. Anglicanism recognizes that Scripture must be read with balance in mind, because there really are some parts that don't fit together very well. In the words of Article 20, "neither may [the Church]so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
Or, as Article VI puts it, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."
What that says is this: Scripture tells us what's necessary for salvation, and it's not for men to devise additional burdens (which was one of Jesus's complaints about the Pharisees). But a close reading of the Articles shows that as Anglicans we are expected to exercise our judgement, too -- that's what "may be proved thereby" is all about: we face situations every day that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, and we're left having to seek God's will.
And I seriously doubt that Mr. Kennedy has fully thought through the implications of requiring that all practice be in accordance with Scripture -- is there direct Scriptural justification for the Hymnal or Prayerbook, for example? Not really. In fact, Anglicanism specifically allows (Article 34) churches to adapt man-ordained "practices" to local circumstances.
I do understand well the place of tradition within Anglican thought. Thanks for the advice. The question of homosexual practice however is a question that strikes at both the authority of the scriptures and that of tradition. Unlike the Roman tradition Anglicans do not place tradition and scripture on equal ground, but give, as you indicate, scriptural authority the higher place. Where tradition contradicts the plain reading of scripture, tradition is incorrect.
I focused my thoughts on scripture, because that is the supreme axis upon which the present controversy turns and it (Scripture as the norma normans) is as essential doctrine.
As for your thoughts on practice. Not sure how or where you got the idea that holding to Scripture as the supreme authority demands the absurdities you suggest? It does NOT mean that nothing can be done without scriptural precedents. It does mean, simply, as Hooker indicates, that no practice or doctrine may be approved that contradicts scripture. Huge difference and one well known to most Anglican thinkers and clerics.