Good evening. I’m here a little early to stake out my position; say a prayer or two for an aching hand – far too much of this blogging malarky! 
A185 Revised Voting Requirement for Resolutions A186 and A187
That resolutions A186 and A187 be deemed to have been carried only if they receive the affirmative votes of sixty percent of the members of each Order present and voting, and if a vote by dioceses is requested, only if they receive the affirmative votes of sixty percent of the dioceses whose votes are counted.
Not sure of the revision yet.
Chancellors opinion that this should be done by Canon. CoGS adopted for this motion, chancellor supported this decision in the end.
Revision is that we must suspend the rules of order, some complicated procedural thing to make this happen properly. This to enable A185 to be debated.
Requires 2/3.
Point of Order James Robinson Dio Calgary. Request formal ruling on whether this will becided by resolution or by canon. Referred to assessors. Not sure of significance. Assessors – our view point raised is not a point of order – point of process. Ah, right, hmm?
Requires 2/3 non-debatable (this is the motion that rule of order be suspended to allow A185 to be voted). C/L 80-20% in favour B almost all in favour.
Now we are onto A185 itself.
We have an amendment to this resolution. Delete 60% with 2/3 and add ‘two successive general synods’.
Mover is speaking in favour of amendment….want to raise the bar on this. Seconder Sheila Vanderputten…..concern for seriousness of the matter. Tumultuous times in Church, two different sides, chasm between. “Should’ not be a communion breaking issue, however it is.
Debating Amendment.
Dio Algoma (Bp Ron Ferris). Need to achieve constitutional clarity. should proceed by Canon, because of doctrinal issue.
Dio Algoma. Supporting this amendment, missed some of that
Dio Moosonee? (Bp ?). In effect defeats motion and turns it back to Canon. Thought is that if this is Canon it will not pass – will then not be possible to maintain discipline. Division will be even deeper. Hence this alternative.
Dio Yukon (Lee). Speaking in favour of the amendment. Need this for clarity.
Dio ? Need to get a grip on this.
Dio Niagra. Find conversation very sad. World is looking to us for leadership. We need this conversation, don’t need amendment, this is out of fear.
Dio Ruperts Land (Matthew). Need to act now.
Dio Calgary (Gene Packwood). Support amendment, serious error to ignore advice of HoB (doctrine of our church does not clearly allow further action). Valuable to menain in communion.
Dio Kootenay. Mind and heart changed, now prepared to support the amendment.
Dio Calgary (James Robinson). CoGS member, in favour of this being decided by Canon. No precedence for 60%. 2/3 is there to stop us tearing ourselves apart.
Point of Order – Colin Johnson Dio Toronto, 2/3 not normal route with diocesan involvement for Canon.
Mover speaks again…bit of history, break my heart if we have train wreck here.
Question called. Calls for simple majority both houses – voting on amendment.
C/L – will do this by counting, though looks opposed to amendment……failed
B also done by counting……….failed
Amendment therefore fails overall.
Back to the original motion.
Debating motion
Dio New West Richard Leggett. Speaking against motion – always vote against motion to suspend rule of order. Should be 50% or 2/3.
Dio Montreal. Speaking against motion – same sort of concerns. Existing rules good enough.
Can ForcesBp ? – Speaking against, have existing rules we use. We are just passing enabling motions, nothing will happen tomorrow, diocese would have to vote for it too.
Dio Toronto. Speaking in favour. Need to say this with some authority, to say clearly. Need to do something, this issue is not going away.
Call for the question.
Point of privilege – time of prayer first please.
NB: From our point of view at this point we want this to pass otherwise (we think) it’ll be back to 50% to pass SSB motions…..it’s very tight.
Question asked for number of votes.
Another question again…bit of dissention and confusion here…..
C/L…we will need to count this…….failed 143/105
B……..carried 30/11
Point of order – dont understand procedure…apparently this is a procedural motion that requires 2/3 vote.
Another question…shouldn’t be asking questions in the middle of the vote. More dissent…..
This is beyond confusing…..now the Abp is vexed…..
I think…..that A185 just failed and that we are back to 50%, but nobody seems to be too clear on this one…….
We have resolution that A186 is by secret ballot……motion defeated.
A186 Blessing of Same Sex Unions – Core Doctrine of ACC
That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of The Anglican Church of Canada.
Currently speaking to this, I’ll catch up…amendment suggested ‘consistant’ to ‘not in conflict’. Is this friendly amendment? Yes. Think therefore it is included.
Speaker ? against motion.
Dio Algoma Ron Ferris. Motion of referral. Shouldn’t do this in 3 min bells. Should refer to theological commission….this one is going to vote, simple majority……stand for count…..
Bishops……in favour 21/16
Clergy Laity……opposed 95/150
Motion of referral fails
Don’cha just love Church politics?
Back to debating the motion. Missed some of the speakers, playing catch-up now.
Speaker ? Opposed.
Dio Calendonia Henry Dunbar. Speaking against motion – beleive it is in conflict with core doctrine. Jesus dealt with things compassionately but directly. Cannot agree with this
Dio Montreal (Chris) Want to be faithful to themes of love in scripture. Will be voting against? Doesn’t matter which way we vote Christians will die. Please a time of prayer on this.
Bp Caledonia. Perplexed as bishop, determine mind of God at Synod. Sense a willingness not to hear the word of God – i.e. through Lambeth conference, by theological commission, by theologians. Not just be passion. Is our faith anchored in more than just emotion?
Dio Montreal.. Releif that this was not referred. We are not making decisions for dioceses. Make this decision now. Are we ready for this as Church? Many of us including me voting for this. Vote our concience.
Dissent now. Motion that debate be closed. Moved and seconded, no debate. 2/3 majority so to do in both houses.
C/L fails
B fails
Carry on with debate.
Abp suspending debate.
Dio Niagra – motion to continue debate – change agenda so to do. Putting to house, 2/3 majority required. Motion failed.
12 more speakers to go tomorrow. We are not going to decide this issue today, sorry folks.
Confirmation, the SSB will be decided by a simple majority, making it more likely that they will pass. The question may well be what the bishops do, can they get 50% of bishops? It is not over until it is over…..more Anglican fun and games tomorrow…….
Peter ~ You have done a magnificent job with this site. Thank you from the Rock. I will have to check in a little later on and see where this goes. The Lutheran decision is encouraging.
(This got lost at the bottom of the afternoon comments so I’m resubmitting it here:)
There’s another procedural conundrum coming up. If A185 (the 60% rule) is adopted, they will still have to suspend the relevant rules which state that resolutions are determined by 50%+1 majorities. And it takes a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules – the standard that was applied on the procedural effort to move up C003. See Rule 23 at http://www.anglican.ca/handbook/104_rules_of_order.pdf
Anyone know how they’re going to handle this?
This evening is the eve of the feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist.
Peter,
I echo the comment made above. Thank you so much for all your work. You are performing quite a service.
Peter, Many thanks for your hard work. On top of all the other reasons why Anglican Essentials is indeed essential, this blog can be added.
I cannot get the livefeed and Peter is commenting as if they started. What’s up?
Clear you cache, Kendall, and REFRESH.
It is working now.
Good quote from para 143 of windsor report from this speaker. His percolator point did work as well.
I think taking 2 synods to resolve this issue might see the next 3 years more tumultuous than the last 3 have been.
This is a good discussion on the question of whether it should be a required 2/3 vote at two successive general synods.
I don’t think the current speaker, member of CofGS, is not persuasive. If it fails by 2/3 this time cannot it not be reintroduced at the next synod?
Middle-aged women with thick-rimmed glasses are generally not very persuasive.
FYI Peter
Dio Niagara- last speaker was Rev. Lynne Corfield.
*squint* that’s ever so small writing
#9 on percolator should have been did NOt work as well, and on #12, I found the CofGS speaker unpersuasive. Sorry for the goofs.
How significant was the margin against the amendment to change the requirement to needing 2/3?
why would they not record the vote totals in the minutes?
According to Robert’s Rules of Order, they certainly should record the vote totals.
This is getting difficult to follow… :S
I don’t like this seems like we are back to 50% on the two remaining motions.
Looks like the Spirit of Confusion is ruling the day.Where is the Holy Spirit in this?
if anyone is following / listening to the official live GS coverage
( Anglican video ), it is all extremely confusing and sounds like an utter mess – not many speakers seem to have a clue as to what is really happening or how the proceedures should proceed…….
sounds like the ACC don’t you think ?
If it goes down to 50% then ACC will have a LOWER standard than even TEC did, since in TEC a vote by orders was called for in the House of Deputies.
I think most of us are watching it. If anyone needs the URL here it is: http://www.anglican.ca/gs2007/atsynod/video/index.htm
(good luck)
This is an interesting strategy. They are lowering the bar on the vote on substance but by so doing they will lose some voters in favor on the issue but not in favor on the method–if I am following correctly.
*good thing they’re all Anglicans and used to a lot of “stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down”*
Recount among clergy and laity–does that mean it is close?
Motion to refer fails on another split between the two houses.
The Bishop makes a good point: “Theology is more than running with our passions and using the Holy Spirit as a justification for that.”
Re @27 “stand up, sit down”
Perhaps they forgot that all important third move in Anglican calesthetics: “keel.”
I loved the quote from the Cree teenager:
My name is Dean Sewap from Cree Pelican, the Diocese of Saskatchewan. If this is passed I would feel that to be faithful in my walk with Jesus, I would need to leave the Anglican Church. I don’t want to leave. I live my church. First nations parishes feel strongly about this but I feel that our voice is not being heard. Please be patient with us. Now is not the time to go ahead with this. God bless you.
Seems to me that is is going to pass in the House of Clergy and Laity; it is going to come down to the bishops. That 21-18 vote earlier by the bishops on referral will be worth keeping an eye on. I am still surprised they have set the bar this low for passage.
Oops – make that “kneel”!!!
Mr. Harmon – to whom are you addressing the continuous questions you are asking???
Chris, I agree, and left “kneel” out on purpose. Glad you picked up on it!
The debate is not closed…motion failed…..saying need 66% to pass motions…..Debate now suspended by chair.
I’m a bit confused here. Is it the case that 66% is required to pass an amendment to a motion but only 50% required to pass the original motion?
They said 66% but confusion is reigning supreme….Hiltz says”Good Luck in the name of the Lord” Good Luck????
Deanne
66% required on the procedural motion to suspend debate, I think…
Prayers of thanksgiving for you for bringing this to us. Don’t know the outcome as I write this, but wishing we would hear such sincere and prayerful debate here in the US. Hope your fingers hold up through the evening. God bless one and all.
Thank you fellas
Gerry, Hiltz didn’t say “Good luck in the name of the Lord”, Hutchison said it to him.
I’m a little confused. Will the motions need only 50% to pass tomorrow or 66%??
Thanks for any clarity out there.
I thought I was tuning in for the SSB vote…but for some reason I all of a sudden want to visit the east coast???
My understand is 50% plus 1…………………..is that correct Pete?
I agree its too low……………..:-(
Patrick: I stand corrected…but the point was…..what is Good Luck doing in that room……..or should I even ask that…
How can a major change of doctrine be left up to 50% majority approval? Surely, even supporters see this as a major possible change with far-reaching implications?
Oh Lord, make haste to help us.
Billqs,
I think it was originally 50+1 with an amendment put forward to change it to 2/3 (66%) but from what I gather (though none of us can seem to figure it out) that amendment was defeated.
Agreed that it’s much too low.