UNOFFICIAL Tallies of Bishops’ Roll Call Votes at GC09, and Anaheim Statement Signatories

Posted by The_Elves

Thanks to the work of a number of T19 readers, led by Karen B., here is an unofficial tally of all the Bishops' roll call votes from GC09.

It includes the roll call votes for:

-- Resolution D025 (basically overturning B033 which urged restraint on consecration of further non-celibate homosexual bishops, etc.)

-- Rowe Amendment to discharge, (i.e. "kill without voting") Resolution C056

-- Resolution C056 (allowing development of SSB liturgies and "generous pastoral response")

-- Also, the currently known signatories to the "Anaheim Statement" are noted.

The listing is based on vote by vote review of the audio files of the roll calls for D025 and C056, and also draws heavily on the Rev. George Conger's report for the Living Church. (however the tally does not exactly match Conger's tally. There are 3 or 4 differences based either on what was heard on audio, or other published reports of how a bishop voted.) There are detailed notes and links to sources at the bottom of the table.

Note: the totals for D025 match the published totals. However the totals for the Rowe Amendment and C056 are slightly off by 2-3 votes. There are several votes which are impossible to hear clearly in the audio files. So these tallies should be used with caution, although they are believed to be 99% accurate.

Please send Kendall or us elves any corrections. We will of course post the official tallies from TEC once they are released.

You can download/view the PDF version of the roll call tallies table here

We're going to try to post the full table here on the blog, but that may be difficult. Check back in a little while.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • - Anglican: Primary Source • -- Statements & Letters: Bishops • Episcopal Church (TEC) • General Convention • TEC Bishops • TEC Conflicts • TEC Data • Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion) • Same-sex blessings • Windsor Report / Process

9 Comments
Posted July 18, 2009 at 3:43 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Jeremy Bonner wrote:

I think I can guess the rationale for “No” on DO25 and “Yes” on CO56.

Can anyone explain why Peter Lee was the only bishop (I think) to vote “Yes” on DO25 and “No” on CO56?

Catholic and Reformed

July 18, 7:25 pm | [comment link]
2. stabill wrote:

Without having knowledge of why Bishop Peter Lee voted as he did, I would suggest that one explanation for “yes” on D025 and “no” on C056 is that the voter has no concerns (beyond B033 restraint) with clergy being openly gay but does not want to support gay unions. Even if the voter does have concerns about openly gay clergy, the voter might think the discernment process (which has no foregone conclusion) should be open to all of the baptized if only for the purpose of observing the canons.

July 18, 7:46 pm | [comment link]
3. hazel the dog wrote:

Can anyone explain why/ how +Henderson (Upper SC) vote yes to D025 and C056 and was able to sign the “Anaheim Statement”?  Just curious.

July 18, 8:42 pm | [comment link]
4. James Manley wrote:

Several voted “yes” for the Rowe motion and “yes” on C056.  How odd.

July 19, 10:39 am | [comment link]
5. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

Jeremy (#1),

+Peter Lee tends to keep his poker cards close to his chest, and rarely explains all his reasons for anything controversial.  But I would point out that he and the Co-Adjutor, +Shannon Johnston, flipped flopped and canceled each other out on D025 and C056.  And my hunch is that this wasn’t accidental.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they deliberately sought to split their votes, in order to maintain VA’s image as centrist and placate potential critics.

Meanwhile +David Jones, the Suffragan in VA, got to break the tie by voting YES on both those fateful, disastrous resolutions.

David Handy+

July 19, 5:12 pm | [comment link]
6. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

Elves,

Thanks for putting together this very helpful tally, even if it’s unofficial and unverified.  I’m sure I speak for many T19 readers in saying that we appreciate your undertaking that tedious chore, and accomplishing it so quickly after the conclusion of this catastrophic GenCon.

I’ll just add that one of the few bishops who voted NO on both D025 and C056 but hasn’t yet signed the Anaheim Statement is +Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island.  As the most conservative woman bishop in the HoB, I sure hope she will bravely sign it in the near future.

Gratefully,
David Handy+

July 19, 5:18 pm | [comment link]
7. cmsigler wrote:

As a former DioVa member, I can’t say I’m surprised by the apparent strategy.  A large portion of “the Diocese” was thrown for loop when +Peter James Lee voted to confirm VGR.  Now, +Lee sees part of his remaining job as setting up his coadjutor to be ordinary with defensible positions, I suppose.  I’m not fooled.

Clemmitt

July 19, 9:15 pm | [comment link]
8. samh wrote:

As opposed to Bp. Keyser in Diocese of Florida, who voted Yes on D025, Yes to kill C056, Yes to approve C056.  Did he just vote yes on everything?

As far as those who voted for C056 or D025, they seem to be of the mind “I wouldn’t do it, but I don’t think it’s wrong for somebody else to do it.” Sigh.

July 20, 4:59 pm | [comment link]
9. samh wrote:

As far as those who voted for C056 or D025, they seem to be of the mind “I wouldn’t do it, but I don’t think it’s wrong for somebody else to do it.”
Those who voted for C056 or D025 and signed the Anaheim Statement, that is.

July 20, 5:00 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): How the "Anaheim Statement" Bishops Voted

Previous entry (below): Reuters: Episcopal Church moves toward blessing gay unions

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)