Whither Same Sex blessings?

Today is the day, I've heard, that (some) of the numerous resolutions regarding same sex blessings will be discussed. One twitterer reports a possible backlash over D025 "triumphalism". However, a more nuanced and sober response to D025 is now coming out here, where even the Bishops disagree what it means, and here, where Fr Terry Martin comments,

Also note that resolution B033 from GC2006 is not even mentioned. To yoke this resolution to that one is a pairing that might be obvious to some people. It sure isn't obvious to me, and I would assume it isn't obvious to anyone else who reads those two resolutions with even an ounce of objectivity.

Does D025 remove the call for restraint found in B033? Where is that said in the language of D025? Please point out the text that accomplishes that purpose, because I don't see it. The call is from God, discerned through our process. B033 did not change that process. No changes were made to our constitution or canons. D025 introduces nothing new.

Still, today there is a whole slew of resolutions related to same sex marriage and blessings which overlap in various ways; you can keep track of their status via Integrity's site, here. You can follow in real time the tweets from individuals about GC (using #ecgc for a hashtag) at the Twubs site, and The Lead is sort of live-blogging the events.

I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to suggest which ones will have a chance to make it out of committee and flutter up to the level of the houses in question. (Hopefully some more sophisticated observers will comment on this.) One rather fears they are like moths, destined for immolation in the flames. Well, by now you know I'm a cynic and a pessimist. C056 seems the likeliest candidate; it would commission a report for the next GC, though possibly restrict any movement to those jurisdictions where civil marriage (and perhaps civil union) is legal (more here). If I read it correctly, it puts an official church-wide response off for at least another 3 years, but allows some flexibility. But, it's not clear that even this will flutter free. So, convention watchers--if it should happen that way, would re-affirming the openness of the episcopate to GLBT candidates be worth the payback of losing any chance of same-sex blessings?

Update: Good thing no one's betting on my predictions, eh? ;-)