Voting on O and A

Presbyteries voting on
Amendments O and A

Last updated 5-31-01

Final votes on amendments [5-31-01]

The Department of Constitutional Services of the Office of the General Assembly (Mary Ruth Phares) has announced that the final tally of the voting on Amendment A is 85 approving, and 88 rejecting the amendment, which would have deleted the references to particular groups as being welcomed in the Presbyterian Church.

Amendment O has been defeated by 73 for to 99 against, with one presbytery taking no action.

Amendment Q is the only other one to be rejected. It would have amended D-12.0103 and D-12.0104 to permit a recommendation of restitution by the offender to the victim(s) of the offense.

Voting on Amendment O - We're almost finished!
[5-1-01]

Latest reports indicate that the last four presbyteries have all voted 'no' (Lake Huron, Sheppards and Lapsley, Shenandoah) or 'no action' (Alaska). Shenandoah and Sheppards and Lapsley both shifted from Yes votes on Amendment B to "No" on "O."

If it can be assumed that San Juan and Suroeste, which have not be heard from, both voted "Yes," the total is 74 yes, 98 no, 1 no action ('no action' is effectively a 'no'). Thirty presbyteries switched from 'yes' on B to 'no' on O, with six going the other way.

Voting on "O" [4-2-01]

As presbytery voting on Amendment O (and all those other amendments, too) draws near a close, the unofficial tally on "O" stands at 72 yes, 95 no, with just six more presbyteries to be heard from. Voting in favor of "O" have been the presbyteries of Donegal (92 - 83); Redstone (69 - 67 - very close compared to 94 - 52 on "B"); Abingdon (yes); Noroeste (yes); Eastern Korean (yes); and Atlantic Korean (yes). Voting against the amendment have been San Fernando (60 - 47); Milwaukee (23 - 80); Long Island (no); and Boston (33 - 44).

So far 28 presbyteries have shifted from supporting "B" to rejecting "O," while 6 have shifted in the other direction.

Alexa Smith of Presbyterian News Service ponders the close votes on most recent issues dealing with sexuality. [3-24-01]

If you're looking for a calm, reasonable presentation of the meaning of the defeat of Amendment O, you might borrow from a presentation by the Rev. James D. Brown, former Executive Director of the General Assembly Council, to his congregation in Harrisburg, PA [3-21-01]

Presbyterian News Service has prepared a map showing the voting on Amendment O (by the unofficial count). It brings no great surprises, but you may want to take a look - and you can download a printable version if you want to use it elsewhere. [3-21-01]

In case you have trouble reading the key, as I did, the colors mean:

	White = No
	Blue = Yes
	Green = not yet voting or not yet reported

Religious News Service reports on the defeat of Amendment O: "Back at square one on gay issues" [3-21-01]

Parker Williamson sees the "war" continuing.

Other groups comment on the defeat of Amendment O [3-19-01]

Presbyterian-related organizations have responded in different ways to last week's deciding (but not final!!) votes on Amendment O. We provide links to some of them comments, and summarize some major points.

Voting on "O"

[3-19-01]

Reports received on Saturday, March 17, indicate that the unofficial vote count is now 65 in favor of Amendment O, and 92 opposed - out of a total of 157 presbyteries voting, or 91% of the total.

Latest reports: Newark (36 for - 57 against); Mackinac (24 - 53); Los Ranchos (140 - 67); Giddings-Lovejoy (55 - 116); Lackawanna (32 - 47). These votes all follow the voting on Amendment B.

Voting on O:
[3-17-01]

Bill Samford reports from Lackawanna Presbytery that they voted today on Amendment O: 32 yes and 47 no.

That puts the totals at 64 votes for and 89 against Amendment O. That's a total of 153 of the presbytery votes reported.

"What's happening with Amendment A?"

It appears likely to pass
[Updated 4-4-01]

One visitor recently raised this question, noting that nobody is offering current tallies of the voting on Amendment A, as many are doing with Amendment O. But, she adds, "I think it's just as important as O (and possibly even more), but has been overshadowed."

The best we can offer comes from Mary Ruth Phares of the Office of the General Assembly, who reported on 4/6/01 that official presbytery votes on Amendment A have been received as follows: 82 affirmative and 80 negative. (Because this official count relies only on official reports from presbyteries, it of course runs behind the informal counts on Amendment O voting that are being kept by various groups.)

To refresh our sometimes fading memories, Amendment A, passed by the 212^th General Assembly, was a way of rejecting an overture to that Assembly which would have added "sexual orientation" to a list of characteristics ("race, ethnic origin, worldly condition") which will never be used as a basis of excluding people from "the membership and ministry of his Church." (G-5.0103)

To avoid asserting directly their aim of excluding one group, opponents of an inclusive church offered an amendment from the floor which would simply eliminate the mention of any of those special groups of people who have in the past experienced exclusion.

A number of racial-ethnic groups and women's groups within the PC(USA) have objected to this cavalier dismissal of history and painful experience. At the same time, recent Assemblies have repeatedly called for new efforts to develop new racial-ethnic congregations and strengthen existing ones.

Does anybody see a little disconnect here? While we want to grow new churches among racial-ethnic communities, it appears that we're unwilling to recognize and respect their experience of exclusion, if it would mean welcoming gay and lesbian people as well.

We're still voting on "O" [3-16-01]

The latest totals are 64 votes for and 88 against Amendment O. That's a total of 152, or 89% of the presbytery votes reported.

The latest presbyteries: Washington (51 - 45); New Brunswick 54 - 128) ; Pacific (87 - 110 - a shift from their 97 -95 vote in favor of Amendment B).

Some Witherspoon reflections on the defeat of Amendment O [3-14-01]

More Witherspoon leaders offer comments. [3-16-01]

Our group has not had time to discuss this collectively, but here are a few immediate comments from some officers as individuals. More will be added as they come in. And if you'd like to share your thoughts about this decision, please send us a note!

Doug King (your WebWeaver) notes that this vote is a healthy step back from the unceasing pressures to constrict our church's witness to a gracious God. But even though the decision has been rendered, progressives will need to keep working to make the vote as convincing as possible in the presbyteries that have yet to vote. We will continue to provide whatever resources we can for that effort.

Clearly, the really important steps toward an inclusive church have yet to be taken, and they will be much more challenging than this one.

Nevertheless, this is a hopeful indication that many people in our Presbyterian Church are concerned to protect the integrity of the church and its ministries. While there is strong and legitimate concern for families, there is a growing awareness that "family" and healthy relationships can take many forms.

We celebrate this step away from a morality of exclusion, and we're grateful to the many sisters and brothers who have worked (and are still working!) so hard to bring us to this point. We look forward with renewed hope for the vital witness of our Presbyterian Church to the gracious love of God for all people.

Jane Hanna, president of the group, appreciates this action partly because "using the Book of Order to decide controversial issues about what constitutes moral behavior is not in the best interest of the Church. With opinion so evenly divided on this subject, it is healthier for the whole body to leave room for individual conscience, and for congregational and presbytery rights to decision making about matters of faith and biblical interpretation."

She adds that "none of us has been given the power to determine upon whom God's blessing should be given. [Check out Sarah Melcher's essay on this subject, published here just yesterday.] As others have pointed out, the health of a committed relationship between two people is a far more important moral concern than the matter of who the two people may be. In no way do the faithful relationships of homosexual couples threaten heterosexual relationships. Any loving relationships between people give additional health to the whole community."

She concludes: "We know the subject is not likely to be dropped, but we are grateful that for now this uncharitable attempt at exclusion has been defeated."

More Witherspoon leaders offer comments. [3-16-01]

Is Satan at work here???

[3-16-01]

Kent Winters-Hazelton reported on the meeting of San Gabriel Presbytery, which approved Amendment O by a vote of 163 to 113

He noted that one highlight of the debate occurred when an elder from one of the most conservative churches in the presbytery spoke about "how we should not let the forces of evil take over our church, and that Satan was confusing the minds of Christians." At that point, she completely lost her place in her notes.

He adds that a major point pushed by proponents of "O" was the threat that racial-ethnic minorities are threatening to leave the denomination over this.

The decision is No on O

updated 3-14-01, at 6 pm CST.

Amendment O has been rejected by 88 No to 64 Yes. Voting continues (this is just 89% of all presbyteries) - and it still matters.

The requisite 87 presbyteries have now decided the issue: Amendment O, which would ban the blessing of holy unions (and in wording, if not in intent, the blessing of many other events and persons as well), has been rejected.

With 150 (87%) votes unofficially reported, 63 favor "O," and 87 reject it.

In voting on Tuesday, March 13, two presbyteries shifted from their votes on Amendment B. Kiskiminetas, which rejected "B" by 64 to 76, yesterday approved "O" by 89 to 59. Presbytery of the Pacific moved the other way; having once approved "B" by a narrow 97 to 95, they yesterday rejected "O" by 87 to 100.

Other No votes came from Eastminster (55 - 56); Cincinnati (105 - 123); New Brunswick (54 - 128), and Utica (voice vote); Yes votes came from Washington (51 - 45), San Gabriel (163 - 113) and Missouri Union (49 - 42).

Presbyterian Partners, a conservative umbrella group formed to support Amendment O, published a statement in their on-line Presbyterian Coalition News. Acknowledging the defeat of "O," they add:

"While the Church has lost this vote, the Church is by no means lost. We have no intention of relaxing our efforts to affirm the message and authority of scripture and to uphold the confessional statements of the Presbyterian Church (USA)."

Well, we're glad to know who defines "the Church." But not quite yet, at least.

Another voting update: [3-12-01]

Unofficial reports from 143 presbyteries indicate 60 votes for Amendment O, and 83 against. The latest are Lake Michigan (55 - 92); Holston (53 - 29); Blackhawk (55 - 92); Cascades (145 - 189). 87 votes are necessary to decide the issue.

27 presbyteries have shifted from supporting Amendment B to rejecting "O," while 5 have switched the other way.

Voting on "O" (updated at 9:30 pm, 3-10-01)

Another presbytery shifts to reject Amendment O

140 presbytery votes have been unofficially reported, with a total of 58 Yes and 82 No.

This report just in from Kurt Kremlick in (where else?) Kalamazoo: Lake Michigan Presbytery meeting in Marshall MI on Saturday, March 10, 2001, voted by ballot NOT to approve Amendment O. The vote was 55 to approve and 92 NOT to approve. The Presbytery also by voice vote did NOT approve Amendment A.

Indian Nations Presbytery has voted by 46 to 63 against the proposed ban on blessing of holy unions, after having approved Amendment B by 58 to 50.

Others reported today: Miami (56 - 91); Grand Canyon (104 - 103); Hanmi (Yes, voice vote). 87 votes are required to pass or defeat the amendment.

27 presbyteries have shifted from supporting "B" to opposing "O," while the total moving the other way is now 5.

For details and earlier reports click here.

Another presbytery shifts to reject Amendment O

[3-10-01]

Indian Nations Presbytery has voted by 46 to 63 against the proposed ban on blessing of holy unions, after having approved Amendment B by 58 to 50.

The total so far: 136 presbytery votes (79%) have been unofficially reported: 56 approve, 80 reject Amendment O. 87 votes will decide the matter. 27 presbyteries have shifted from supporting "B" to opposing "O," while the total moving the other way is now 5.

Presbyterian News Service recently reported on a survey of PCUSA members which indicates that most of them still oppose any blessing of same-sex unions. [3-8-01]

	*Doug Nave has commented on the survey and on current voting on Amendment O, finding hopeful signs in both.*
	Barbara Kellam-Scott has been critical of the reports of the survey.

Latest voting on O:

Eastern Oklahoma shifts from opposing "B" to supporting "O"

[3-8-01]

By a vote of 63 to 49, Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery has approved Amendment O, becoming the fifth presbytery to shift from opposing Amendment B to supporting the ban on blessing of holy unions -- and perhaps many other blessings as well.

Nevada Presbytery also voted in favor of "O," by 41 to 18.

So a total of 135 presbyteries have voted (78% of them) -- 56 in favor, 79 against. 87 votes will decide the matter. 26 presbyteries have shifted from supporting "B" to opposing "O," which the total moving the other way is now 5.

Voting on Amendment O:
[3-6-01]

Transylvania Presbytery has voted 62-64 against "O," a shift from their vote in favor of "B" by 91-75. East Tennessee has voted 99-89 in favor of "O."

A report on the vote in Transylvania Presbytery

March 6, 2001

The vote today was 62 for, 64 against. The amendment failed. Ours became the latest presbytery to shift from supporting B to opposing O.
Thank you for your web page resources. This has been a difficult past several months, and your pages were helpful. I hope this information is helpful to other readers of your page.
The lead speaker against O was preceded by a speaker using biblical authority in support of O. The lead speaker against O pointed out that 30 to 40 years ago these same biblical authority arguments were being used to justify excluding women from leadership roles and to justify opposition to interracial relationships.
Our presbytery also called for a third way during the debate, which would attempt to find some middle ground between the two positions.
This vote was held in London, Kentucky, which is in the mountainous part of the Presbytery. If the conventional wisdom was that would favor conservative voting and therefore O, the conventional wisdom was wrong.
Bob Layton
Elder/Commissioner to the Transylvania Presbytery for
Meadowthorpe Presbyterian Church
Lexington, KY

Thus with 133 (77%) of the presbyteries unofficially reporting, 54 have approved the amendment to ban holy unions, and 79 have rejected it.

26 have shifted from favoring "B" to opposing "O," while 4 have shifted in the other direction.

Check our voting page for more details and links to complete lists of the voting.

Late word on the voting on Amendment O

Reports today [3-3-01] bring us to a total of 131 presbyteries, with 53 voting Yes and 78 now voting No on Amendment O.

25 presbyteries have moved from supporting Amendment B to rejecting "O," while the number moving the other way remains at 4. The list is below.

The latest to shift from support of "B" to rejecting "O" are Central Nebraska (12-36), Grace (204-206!), and The Pines (29-41).

Hans Cornelder, who manages PresbyWeb, has noted tonight that "although no majority of the presbyteries has voted "yes" or "no" on Amendment 00-O at this time, it appears to be all but certain that this amendment will fail."

He goes on: "Just a few days ago the Presbyterian Coalition [on whose board he sits] sent out an email stating that O was still winnable. That was based on the assumption that the remaining Presbyteries that voted yes on B also would vote yes on O. Since then, three more presbyteries have switched from yes on B to no on O: Central Nebraska, Grace and The Pines. For O to be adopted would require 10 of the 16 remaining presbyteries that voted "no" on B now to vote "yes" on O. It is safe to say that nobody expects that to happen. Thus far only four presbyteries have made such a switch."

Which presbyteries have shifted in their voting?

Updated 3-10-01

Groups on left and right have been paying close attention to the presbyteries that have shifted from their support of Amendment B to rejecting the current Amendment O, or vice versa.

By way of quick summary, these 25 presbyteries have shifted from support of "B" to rejecting "O": Wabash Valley, Trinity, Tres Rios, St. Augustine, South Louisiana, Salem, Sacramento, Providence, Pines, Philadelphia, Palo Duro, Northern Plains, North Central Iowa, Missouri River Valley, Memphis, James, Indian Nations, Homestead, Greater Atlanta, Grace, Florida, Eastern Virginia, Dakota, de Cristo, Central Nebraska, and Carlisle.

Moving the other way, to approve "O": Great Rivers, Plains and Peaks, New Covenant, and Cimarron.

Voting on Amendment O:

[3-3-01] Mission Presbytery voted yesterday to reject Amendment O, by a vote of 179 in favor, 209 against.

Central Nebraska voted today to reject "O," by 12 to 36. They approved "B" by 44 to 33. That makes a total of 24 presbyteries shifting from supporting "B" to rejecting "O." Just 4 have moved in the other direction.

By your WebWeaver's sometimes wobbly count, that makes a total of 53 votes for "O," and 77 against. (Or 78 against, depending on whose web list you believe.)

[3-2-01]

The latest unofficial reports, as of March 1, indicate that 127 presbyteries (73%) have voted on Amendment O, with 53 in favor and 74 against. "O" will be defeated unless 7 more presbyteries shift from their rejection of Amendment B to supporting "O."

22 presbyteries so far have shifted from their support of Amendment B to rejecting "O," while just 4 have shifted in the other direction. The latest to reject O and after supporting B is Philadelphia, which voted against "O" on February 27 by 218 for, to 221 against, with 2 abstentions. Philadelphia supported Amendment B by 255 to 197.

The Presbyterian Coalition, surveying the situation, has concluded, "YES, O is still winnable!" The seven needed shifts can be gained, they believe, if there are: "Turnout, turnout, turnout," prayer, correct information to overcome the "misinformation about O going around," and more work by supporters of "O" to use the resources being provided by the Coalition.

The latest voting on "O":
[2-24-01]

A total of 115 presbytery votes (66%) have now been reported -- unofficially.

In favor of the ban on holy unions: 43; against: 72.

The latest reports include

	Wabash Valley (84-93, rejecting "O" -- a shift from their vote in favor of "B");
	Tampa Bay (140-100, favoring "O," but by a smaller margin than the vote for "B." The Witherspoon chapter in Tampa Bay produced a very helpful information flier on "O," which you may want to look at here);
	North Puget Sound (64-54);
	Great Rivers (112-79 -- becoming the fourth presbytery to shift from rejecting "B" to supporting "O").
	Tres Rios Presbytery voted yesterday to reject Amendment O, by 42 for to 48 against -- a shift from their earlier vote in favor of "B."

Twenty-one presbyteries have now shifted from supporting "B" to rejecting "O"; four have switched in the other direction.

Words of Jesus help defeat "O"

The Rev. Mitch Trigger sends this report from Susquehanna Valley:

[2-18-01]

The Presbytery of Susquehanna Valley voted against "O" by a vote of 15 yes, 55 no, 1 abstention. Probably one of the best comments made during the brief discussion was by someone who had been wrestling with how to vote on "O." This was a minister that usually could have been counted on to vote in favor of "O." He said he was finally influenced by the lectionary reading for this Sunday in Luke's gospel. He pointed out that in the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus said, "...bless those who curse you." As my colleague so plainly put it, "If Jesus is telling me to bless those who violently disagree with me, then who are we to say we can't bless certain people?"

Resistance to Amendment O doesn't necessarily signal general support for gay/lesbian concerns

[2-17-01]

An Outlook report by Leslie Scanlon points out that a number of people and presbyteries are rejecting Amendment O, the ban on holy unions, not because they are committed to a more inclusive church, but because they are concerned about the limitation of pastors' freedom to minister to gay and lesbian parishioners.

2-16-01

Three more presbyteries have reported their votes on Amendment O: Homestead voted 29 to 50 against the ban on holy unions (a shift from their vote on Amendment B); Mississippi voted 52-15 in favor; Olympia voted 81-29 in favor.

With 89 votes (51%) now in, the total is 31 yes and 58 no. Sixteen presbyteries have shifted from yes on "B" to no on "O," with three shifting the other way.

2-15-01

The Presbytery of Providence (in South Carolina) has shifted from a Yes on "B" to a No on "O" -- by a vote of 20 to 80. That puts the vote count now at 27 Yes and 55 No. If all other presbyteries vote as they did on Amendment B, the ban on holy unions will fail by one vote. So far, 14 presbyteries have shifted from supporting B to rejecting O, while 2 have moved in the other direction.

A Feb. 14 report from Presbyterian News Service sees the voting as still very close. Jerry Andrews of Chicago, chair of the Presbyterian Coalition, is stepping up efforts to get conservative pastors to get more elders to presbytery meetings.

Attorney Doug Nave offers an analysis of the voting on Amendment O, noting that 30% of the presbyteries so far have decided the issue by a margin of 10 votes or less.
[posted 2-12-01]

For another perspective on the voting on Amendment O, Sam Lanham compares the vote to that on a similar measure in 1994. [2-13-01]

The latest on the voting: If no more presbyteries shift, "O" will be rejected.

The latest to shift from voting for Amendment B to voting against "O" are: Providence; Memphis (62-70); Florida (38-45); St. Augustine (85-87); Trinity (No); and the Presbytery of the James (in Virginia), which voted 173 to 133 against Amendment O. New Covenant shifted the other way to approve of "O."

The Presbytery of Northern New York voted "after a non-abrasive discussion" to disapprove "O" by a margin of about 2 to 1.

So far 14 presbyteries have shifted from approving "B" to rejecting "O"; two have now shifted in the other direction. If there are no more shifts to support "O," it will be defeated.

Other recent reports are from Albany (yes 19, no 80), Dakota (No), Yellowstone; Northern New England; Santa Fe (yes 21, no 108); Middle Tennessee (yes 90, no 112, abstain 4); Salem (yes 158, no 167); New Castle; Stockton; Tropical Florida; Plains and Peaks; New York City.

Presbyterian News Service surveys observers from right and left about the current voting on Amendment O. Both sides say it's another close one; conservatives are redoubling their get-out-the-vote efforts. [2-9-01]

Covenant Network and PresbyWeb are both keeping tallies of the voting.

Middle Tennessee

Gene TeSelle reported that Middle Tennessee voted to disapprove "O," as it had voted against Amendment B in 1997. He added that "Amendment A was approved, after little debate."

Salem Presbytery

Jean Rodenbough reported on Saturday, Feb. 3, that Salem Presbytery in North Carolina rejected "O" by 167 to 158. She adds, "We also voted no on Amendment A with a strong voice vote." Bill Knox commented on the reasons for opposition to "O": "Several folks just thought it was a poor amendment....went too far ... prohibited consciousness in pastoral care, and told the Session how they could not use their property .... as well as some sympathy for family members who might be involved in a faithful relationship."

So far, 48 presbyteries have voted to reject Amendment O, and 20 have voted to approve it. EIGHT presbyteries that voted "yes" on Amendment B have now rejected Amendment O. They are Dakota, Salem, Missouri River Valley, North Central Iowa, Carlisle, Northern Plains, de Cristo, and Eastern Virginia.

Five more such shifts would defeat Amendment O.

Votes reported fairly recently:

New York City (No); Santa Barbara (Yes); Wyoming (No); Cayuga-Syracuse (13 - 49 - 1); Genesee Valley (No); Eastern Virginia (58 - 92); Sierra Blanca (15 - 19); Northern Kansas (39 - 78); Geneva (19 - 66); Upper Ohio Valley (64 - 24); Beaver-Butler (86 - 27); Western North Carolina (136 - 97); Northern Plains (33 - 36); de Cristo (48 - 63)

Earlier reports: Baltimore (no); Lehigh (no); Huntingdon (yes); Detroit; Denver (no); Monmouth (no); Carlisle (no); Palisades (no: 25 - 67); National Capitol (no: 89 - 233); Western Reserve (no); Utah (no); Redwoods (no); Northumberland (yes); Des Moines (no). North Central Iowa (no: 37-56-1); Missouri River Valley (no); Des Moines (no); San Diego (yes: 93 - 27); Scioto Valley (no: 81-117); Seattle (yes: 138-103); Maumee Valley (no: 34-84)

Presbyterian News Service has published (on Jan. 23) a good overview of the voting and the campaigning efforts aimed at shaping the voting.

Coalition expresses concern about voting, calls for evangelical get-out-the-vote efforts
[1-24-01]

Palisades votes No on O

special report from Barbara Kellam Scott

[1-24-01]

The Presbytery of the Palisades gave no surprises tonight (Jan. 23) in rejecting the ministry gag order, although it did do it even more strongly than it voted no on B and yes on A. The count was 25 yes, 67 no (the past votes had been more nearly 2-to-1). The vote, by paper ballot, followed a panel presentation -- one speaker each pro/con, on polity and faith bases -- and very brief Q&A, small-group open discussion, dinner and stuff, worship, and a typically confused debate that lacked real substance.

The National Capital Presbytery voted 233-89 to reject Amendment O. As reported in the Washington Times, the Rev. Christopher Yim commented that "The debate was quite civil. ... We had the familiar arguments about justice and the interpretation of Scripture."

[1-24-01]

Muskingum Valley approves O

[1-13-01]

Muskingum Valley Presbytery voted today to approve Amendment O by a vote of 70 yes and 65 no, with 3 abstentions. The presbytery in the past has voted to approve Amendment B and not to approve Amendment A.

The presbytery also voted to approve Amendment A by a vote of 67 yes and 65 no, and defeated a proposed overture to remove G-6.0106b from the Book of order by a vote of 67 yes and 65 no.

Thanks to Martin Radcliff, pastor of Bloomfield United Presbyterian Church, New Concord, Ohio, who reported this on PresbyNet.

Twin Cities voted against both O and A. Click here for details.

Report of January 10:

Three more presbyteries vote on "O"

[1-10-01]

Of 21 presbytery votes on Amendment O that have been reported thus far, 7 presbyteries have approved the amendment, and 14 have rejected it. Riverside approved by a voice vote; Chicago voted "No" by 89 to 169.
Correction: San Francisco voted "No" by 212 (not 272) to 158.

Gordon Ringenberg of San Francisco presbytery sent this report:

It was a long, vigorous and civil debate. Speakers on both sides were well prepared with viewpoints that did not vary much from the arguments that are well known. An organizing session held at Old First Church a couple of months ago (organized by Covenant Network and More Light Presbyterians) was successful in getting out many members who might not otherwise have attended.
There was some evidence that the other side had also organized their commissioners. Another local overture from Northminster Presbyterian Church, El Cerrito, that would remove the language of G-6.0106b from the Book of Order, passed by a somewhat smaller margain, but we were surprised that it passed at all.

The Presbyterian Forum offers some interesting thoughts on the current voting on amendments A and O -- noting that Amendment A is gaining support in presbyteries that might have been expected to oppose it.

If you have results to share -- and especially if you have comments on the debates in your own presbytery, please send us a note!