by Midnight Freemason Contributor
Bro:. Jason Richards
&
Guest Contributor
WB:. Jon Ruark
On Friday, 26 June, 2015, the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in support of homosexual marriage equality. This nationwide declaration of equality and the changing societal norms it represents necessitates taking a hard look at Freemasonry--long having been recognized as an organization that celebrates all men as equals--and its attitude toward homosexuality in order to ask the question: “If all men are equal, and now have equal rights to marriage across the United States, is the practice of homosexuality in and of itself ‘unmasonic’?”
Before delving into such a discussion, it is necessary to define the term “unmasonic” for the purposes of our discussion here. Unmasonic conduct is often referenced--even by Albert Mackey on numerous occasions--but has seldom been defined. Most often, it is utilized either as a synonym for “immorality” or described as “conduct unbecoming of a Mason.” However, both of these uses are deeply subjective, and interpretation could vary widely depending on a given culture or circumstance as moral laws differ greatly from culture to culture. For the purposes of our discussion here, we would posit a more objective and measurable definition of unmasonic conduct: “an action that causes serious harm within the fraternity or its public image outside of the fraternity.” As a society of good men who strive to make eachother into better men, it is important to retain harmony within the organization so it doesn’t crumble from within, but also just as important to retain a positive public image so that the organization can persist and attract membership.
(Left to Right) Bros. Robert Johnson, Jason Richards & Jon Ruark broadcasting TMR from Jason's house in VA |
But back to the original question of this article. If we look at unmasonic conduct from the objective lens postulated earlier, we find it difficult to reconcile calling homosexuality “unmasonic.” Homosexuality causes no inherent harm within the lodge. Regardless of race, age, or sexual orientation, brethren are expected to treat each other with the utmost respect. Furthermore, as societal norms have changed and homosexuality is no longer the social taboo it happened to be several decades ago, the presence of homosexuals in the lodge does not harm the fraternity’s public image. Quite to the contrary--as we have seen in recent times with organizations accused of anti-gay sentiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy), even a perceived lack of toleration can do harm to an organization’s public image. If we care about public perception--and we should given the past 50 years’ worth of membership trends--then a reexamination of our rules and perceptions toward homosexuality is prudent.
If homosexuality is now accepted as a societal norm (much like minorities were increasingly accepted as equal members of society after the Civil Rights movement of the 1970’s), and causes no inherent harm within the fraternity or to the fraternity’s public image, then where are these regulations rooted? Arguably, much of the resistance to homosexuality in Masonry has roots in Christianity, the principles and dogma of which have long been interpreted as condemning the practice of homosexuality. But whether or not a given brother or grand officer subscribes to those interpretations is irrelevant where Masonry is concerned as religion has no place inside the walls of the lodge. The fraternity’s most recent addition to the landmarks of Freemasonry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_Landmarks) is that religion and politics (and sometimes nationalities/borders) are not to be discussed in lodge as those topics only serve to divide, rather than unite, brethren. For the sake of the fraternity, brethren are exhorted to celebrate the common belief of a Supreme Being within lodge while, at the same time, respecting each brother’s right to subscribe to his own religious dogma.
As a result, a brother’s religious-inspired belief that homosexuality is immoral (and therefore “unmasonic”) has no place within the confines of the lodge room. Likewise, a man’s sexual orientation should have no bearing on his being accepted or rejected as a candidate to receive the degrees in Freemasonry. After all, candidates are balloted upon within the lodge room during a tiled meeting. As such, religious and political biases should have no bearing on a candidate’s internal qualifications for Masonic membership.
Friday’s Supreme Court decision has presented our brotherhood with a distinct opportunity to move forward in line with the ideals upon which our great fraternity was founded: tolerance, harmony, and unity. By embracing toleration for all men under the fatherhood of God regardless of race or sexual orientation, we can set ourselves above today’s polarized society. That toleration, in turn, will promote harmony and build unity within our lodges. By celebrating our diversity rather than condemning it, our fraternity will grow stronger and attract innovative, exceptional young men to join our ranks as men and Masons for years to come.
~JR & JR
(Left to Right) Bro. Jon Ruark, Bro. Jason Richards |
WB. Jon Ruark is a Past Master of The Patriot Lodge No. 1957 in Fairfax, VA. His love of technology and gadgets led him to start The Masonic Roundtable as a Hangout on Air. His Masonic interests lean toward the esoteric and philosophical aspect. He lives in Virginia with his wife, 2.5 children, a dog named Copernicus, and a cat named Tesla who’s a jerk.
Same-sex marriage presents some difficulties within the lodge. Difficulties that, as an organization, we will need to face if we hope to remain relevant.
ReplyDeleteMy obligation, for example, gave certain protections to the wife of a brother. Does that same protection extend to a husband? In spirit, of course it does, but not in letter, and unfortunately we all know brothers who subscribe more to the letter of the law than the spirit.
Another possible concern of disharmony comes from two men who are married sitting in lodge together. No matter how great the marriage is, there will always be the occasional fight, which could bleed over into lodge if they both attend the same one.
An even bigger concern, which every Grand Lodge is struggling to figure out, is how do you deal with trans-gender people. If you were born a man, but had a sex change, are you still able to be a Mason? Conversely, if you were born a woman, but are now a man, do you qualify to become a Mason?
These aren't issues that should stop the craft from accepting and loving brothers, regardless of their orientation, however they are issues that we will have to face and solve at some point. Until very recently, most Grand Lodges have taken the stance of putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and pretending this doesn't exist. We have the opportunity to be proactive in our acceptance, but only if we have the bravery to face these issues head on, and set the example the rest of the world should follow.
Thank you brothers for this excellent article; there is much food for thought here, and we need to come together as a society of friends and brothers to tackle equal rights.
"If you were born a man, but had a sex change, are you still able to be a Mason? Conversely, if you were born a woman, but are now a man, do you qualify to become a Mason?"
DeleteI know many Transgendered people, both Male to Female and Female to Male. I've also discussed this very topic with my Coach years ago. It only makes sense that if a person presents himself as a man, appears as a man, acts as a man, has a man's name, has a good reputation, a belief in a supreme being, the immoral soul and meets all the other qualifications of becoming a Freemason, that they be allowed to petition a Lodge. We don't, after all, do a genital check on our candidates.
On the other hand, we are a Fraternity. Thusly, if a Brother transitions to Female, then that Brother is no longer a Brother since he is now presenting as a female. I've also found that those who are Male to Female TG have no interest in joining a Fraternity since they identify as Female and know Masonry to be exclusively a Male organization. Eastern Star, however...that's a different story :)
Hi Bro. William, Thanks for the comments! My personal view is that if a person is seen as legally male by the state, he should be viewed as a candidate for malecraft Masonry. But Grand Lodges are still struggling with racism and homosexuality--most of them aren't nearly ready to tackle the issue of gender fluidity and transexual behavior. That said, there's always co-masonry! -Jason
DeleteBrothers Jason and Jon - Excellent and timely article on an issue that is often taboo, homosexuality and Masonry. It is not just societal norms that indicate exclusion, based on sexual preference, from Freemasonry is wrong, it is also wrong from an equal rights point of view, as you indicate. If we are to meet on the level, we must evolve our views to rid ourselves of societal prejudices from the past. Your arguments of why this topic, most based on religious beliefs, should not be brought into lodge are spot on. Thanks for your diligence in taking on tough topics so that we all may become better men in Masonry. I am honored to have you both as mentor, friend, and brother. Keep the light on.
ReplyDeleteI read the article. It has several flaws.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Supreme Court is not the same as the Citizenry. The issue got to the Supreme Court because most people in the US are still opposed to normalizing homosexual behavior. The five people who changed the destiny of this country do not represent the will of the majority.
Second, morality does not change with time because people change their minds about it. Morality is those actions and behaviors that lead to the good health and well-being of individuals and communities. In so far as homosexuality involves intense participation in behaviors that contribute to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, sexual injuries, cancer, back problems, and negative changes to the personality, it leads to sickness and misery. Thus, by definition, homosexuality is not moral no matter what laws are voted on or decreed.
Masonry is a moral science. It is a codified system of living a moral life and for living with others in a moral society. Masons are ever concerned with the promotion of good health and happiness as evidenced by the Shriners' Hospitals, our care of widows and orphans, our support of childrens' school activities, our interest in educating teachers in how to identify childrens' issues that can lead to greater problems, and our concern for health and well-being of our membership.
Homosexuality has ever been recognized as a behavior that leads to sickness and misery. It has been expressly forbidden not because of a discriminatory attitude, but because it destroys the fabric of human society. A group of profane people painting rainbows over their picture cannot hide the ugly truth of homosexuality, nor change its negative consequences.
As Freemasons, our ritual and obligations implore us to stand firm as the bedrock of a moral society. We are obligated as a fraternity to keep our membership moral and we have the means to maintain that morality through the use of suspensions and expulsions. If that means we must stand against a freak wave of popular immorality, then that is what we must do. If we don't, thousands of years of moral Masonic effort will be wasted, and the world will be bereft of one of its greatest moral compasses.
Also, with regard to Christianity in Freemasonry, did you know that the Saints John refer to John the Baptist and John the Evangelist? These two men are patron saints of Christianity and not any other religion. I don't know about your jurisdiction, but in the Vermont and Illinois jurisdictions, our lodges are DEDICATED to the Saints John(s). You can't tell me that Freemasonry is not based upon the Christian teachings!
ReplyDeleteThat we do not discuss religion and politics in our lodges does not mean we are not religious. It simply means we are civil and understand that each individual has the freedom to believe according to their own conscience. This freedom applies to our religious beliefs as well as our political beliefs.
The practice of allowing Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and other faiths into our lodges does not mean Christianity is marginalized. It means that generous, open-minded, and non-discriminatory Christians are civil people who can live harmoniously with people of other faiths.
Our tolerance is exemplified by our openness; our tolerance was never intended to undermine our Christian beliefs. If you still think that Christians are the problem, I politely suggest you dimit from Freemasonry and seek a different group of people to associate with.
The preceding comment, and the prevailing Masonic attitude it reflects, are part of the reason I don't go to lodge anymore.
ReplyDeleteA eunuch can not be made a Mason. So then arises the question of how can a gay or transgender male be made a Mason? I don't believe that Masonry was ever meant to bend it's laws, rules and regulations to include everyone. Joining our fraternity is not a civil right but rather a great and important privilege.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court simply interprets the US Constitution, that's all.
ReplyDeleteUnits of government issue licenses to marry. The Constitution does not prohibit marriage of people of the same gender, and in fact gives equal rights to all. For example, for income taxes, one can use the deductions applicable to married people.
It does not rule on morality.
SCOTUS does not force religious organizations to perform a religious ceremony to marry people of the same gender. Nor does it force private fraternal organizations to accept gays into their ranks.
I have relatives who are gay. Although personally I find their lifestyle distasteful, they are still people to whom one could trust their lives, as we swear in our Master Mason's Oath and Obligation. For various reasons they have not found a partner of the opposite gender to form a married relationship, but have established a trusting and loving relationship with a partner of their gender.
Contrary to a previous opinion, homosexuality has NOT been expressly forbidden. A homosexual is not a eunuch, libertine, or a woman. If a man takes and keeps the same oaths we have, he should be able to give and receive brotherly love, even though he has chosen to love and live with another man. Not that I feel entirely comfortable with that, just that it is right, and as Jesus of Nazareth teaches. Even though Freemasonry is not a Christian organization, and the Grand Architect can be called God, or Allah, or Jehovah, or Yahweh or the Great Spirit, etc., Masonic principles are largely those that Jesus teaches, they are also found in the Old Testament on which Masonic ceremonies are based, and which is common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
A long answer to a short yes-or-no question: Is homosexuality Unmasonic?
The answer is 'No'.
And if a man had his testicles and penis removed due to cancer, is he going to be allowed to continue as a Mason? It is amazing to me to see the comments of people who so need to find their own superior self that they need to create a world where the rules define them as superior.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe sexual orientation matters. The more difficult issue is trans gender persons. If a person under goes a sex change process does that effect their ability to become or remain a Mason? How are those in the process regarded? Civil Law has a very specific definition of male and female and at what point in the sex change process they are legally a different sex. What does Masonic Law say?
ReplyDeleteI meant no disrespect to anyone by my earlier comment. Nor was I trying to condemn anyone for their sexual preference. I was merely offering up another question to the subject, as pertaining to our Masonic ritual/tradition. I certainly do not esteem myself better than any of my fellow creatures. God bless.
ReplyDeleteDave Thomson,
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of comments on your post
I'm not sure where you are finding the number to support your claim that the majority still object to homosexual behavior as I've never seen any study on this. I have seen many studies that have shown 2/3rds of Americans support same sex marriage. 2/3rds of Americans support is a majority. The civil rights movement brought a change in the way people saw minorities and the marriage equality movement is bring with it a shift on peoples view on Homosexuality.
Morality is subjective. What is morally acceptable to me will be different to you. At one time owning slaves was morally acceptable. That has changed ver time. Your accusations about homosexual behavior causing the spread of STD's, Sexual injuries, cancer, back problems and personalities makes me feel that have not done any research into what you are saying. Majority of LGTB members have loving monogamous relationships. There are some (like in the heterosexual society) that "play" the field. I would actually go out on a limb and say that heterosexuals are more likely to spread STD's than LGTB communities and the people from LGTB tend to be more informed about STD's then heterosexuals. Your statements prove my next point that there seems to be a perception among some heterosexuals that STD's are more of an issue in the gay community. This is wrong on so many levels.
There is some truth to your comments about homosexuality being links to unhappiness and sickness but not for the reason you seem to be claiming. Most members of the gay community feel the need to hide and try to "fit" in because people hold similar views to you. This will lead to depression and depression will cause people to be susceptible to many other health issues.
I have no clue where you feel that homosexuality will destroy the human fabric. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. If it is going to destroy the fabric of humanity it sure is taking it's time.
You make a statement about allowing other religions in as if they are second class citizens within the lodge and only allowed because of the generosity of the Christians. This is not what I was taught about freemasonry. I was raised in a lodge there everyone (in the lodge and out) should be treated as being on the level,
America is a society of the free or so it claims. Yet there is a minority who believe that it's free only for the people who believe what they believe and do what they do. The founding fathers (many of them mason's) wanted a separation of church and state. If you feel that there shouldn't be a separation of church and state than you have a lot in common with the Taliban and ISIS.
I would encourage you to stop looking at the fact that someone is gay as defining who they are and allow the persons actions to define them.
To me it looks alot like the discussion of different races in the Lodge. It is still a stain on the United States Lodges that we have the Prince Albert Lodge which is not officially recognized within the Main Lodges. Have we not learnt form this lesson? Why do we even ask about religion, race, or sexual orientation? Is not a belief in one supreme being enough? That is all the early Masons asked for.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify my previous post, I am in no against the Prince Albert Lodge , just against the need for it to be formed.
ReplyDeleteDavid Thomson needs Further Light. There are so very many flaws in his statements that he made my head spin. I initially concocted several paragraphs in explanation as to why, but I figured there are many Masons and non-Masons alike who will read this, and be able to see right through his yammerings. I also did not want to clog this thread with sentiments of ill-will, as that is inevitable, without me. The use of the Square and Compasses in conjunction with a Rainbow flag on Facebook recently made me a subject of hatred and contempt -- mostly by a group of men I would refer to as "MINO's" (Masons In Name Only), from another jurisdiction, other than my own, and the consensus was that I should be "hanged." As opinionated as I might be, as opposed to homophobia as I am, and as completely against self-righteous posturings and delusions of intellectual superiority as I am, I really don't want to be a part of vilifying or disarming someone when they have made themselves vulnerable to the scrutiny of thousands of other people. While I want it to be very clear than I am in grave disagreement with this man -- be he a Mason or not -- I also do not wish to be part of the monstrous wave of backlash against him. I just wish him the best in his search for Light -- much of which he has undoubtedly not found. Lest I come across as lightly masking contempt for one man, I'd like to offer this one last thing. There is a little Dave Thomson inside each of us. We can either suffocate him, or educate him. I think I know the caliber of man that would wish to suffocate him, and that man would not have made it past the West Gate of my Lodge.
ReplyDeleteI am a Mason, from The Grand Lodge of Manitoba, Canada. Ancient Landmark Lodge #3 to be exact. I was an active Mason in my lodge and had almost flawless work combine with moving thru the chairs. I came out to a brother and told him that I must be truthful. His response was to ignore me from that point on. I spoke with a Past Grand Master before, discussing my orientation with any brother. Here is an excerpt from a web page of mine: "Perhaps it would be prudent to keep this news to yourself; some of the members, may not accept this very well. Don't ask. Don't tell.". Some brethren asked me 'Why I was telling them this?' (that I was homosexual). I guess I should have listened to him (The PGM). But I don't like to have to pretend that it doesn't exist, (homophobia). It must, as I can not see another reason that only a few of my brethren have chosen to maintain contact with me when I moved away... No cards for when I was in hospital (for weeks at a time, I could have used a cheerful phone call, email or even a letter from my friends). No inquiries from brother's to find out how I am coping with life. Benevolence from The Lodge and certain members, have kept me in good standing, and that is appreciated, but why do I feel under restraint and unaccepted in and around members of my own Lodge? Is it just me? I may never know. I just wanted the brethren to know who I am, and being gay is part of that.
ReplyDeleteI remain sad to this day having demitted.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that so many Brothers that are opposed to Gays & Gay marriage (commenting both here and on the Facebook thread) use the VSL as the crux of their argument. I wonder how many of them are also aware of their cherry picking of scripture. After all the VSL also contains some 52 references to Usury (charging interest) being a Sin. Yet I do not see too many folk protesting outside of banks or financial institutions, nor do I see them being so passionate or venomous about the sinfullness of such institutions. And plenty of folk have mortgages, car loans and credit cards. Surely being involved in such things would also make them complicit in a Sin ? At least according to the logic they use to justify their position.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I care not about a brothers (or sisters) religion, race, political affiliations or sexual orientation. What is important to me is their character, their integrity and how they treat others.
As a Freemason the search for light at its ultimate destination leads us to the place where there is no separation, none of us are separate from that which we seek. So who am I to judge anothers path, as a Brother all I can do is be the best support of their journey that I am able to be.
In the end, as in the beginning, "Love is".
Brothers, during the voting process of an applicant we are advised that; we will not be asked how we voted or why we voted, but vote for the good of masonry. That being said, let your conscious be your guide.
ReplyDelete"even a perceived lack of toleration can do harm to an organization’s public image. If we care about public perception--and we should given the past 50 years’ worth of membership trends--then a reexamination of our rules and perceptions toward homosexuality is prudent. "
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit confused by this, are you saying that to increase membership we should follow social trends? Just for the sake of numbers and public perception?
It is totally immoral I which our obligation to God does not tolerate this sinful lifestyle
ReplyDeleteclick bait!
ReplyDeleteAn adult's sexual preference makes no difference to me, nor should it. What adults do in the privacy of their own home is entirely their private business. I happen to belong to a lodge that has a high number of brothers who are gay, and they feel comfortable enough with our lodge to be open about it. That's a good thing, because a lodge is supposed to be a place one can consider safe, a home away from home, if you like. A lodge is a place for fellowship and learning. Part of making a good man better in a place like this includes learning to accept one another for who they are. Outside of lodge as adults what they do is their private and confidential business. However, Lex Mc, when a large number of states hold a ballot positively defining "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman the voters have spoken- period. To have SCOTUS reverse the decision of those very same voters is, in my opinion, wrong. All this decision has done is dis-incentivize voters to exercise our constitutional RIGHTS as Americans (as if voter turn-out wasn't low enough already). I stipulate that gay couples already obtained the very same rights and privileges of a man and woman who marry. But apparently, that equality wasn't enough. The word had to be redifined to "include" (spelled; in-your-face). Then add in IF an independent business owner made a conscious decision to not bake a cake, arrange flowers, or photograph a gay union because the independent business owner's strong religious beliefs disagree with the gay union, the business owner's right to refuse service is taken away, and in certain instances, put out of business via "social media" attacks and vilified as homophonic or "hater". Remember, I began this post stating clearly what adults do in their privacy is their business. I have several friends and brothers who happen to be gay, and I love most of them dearly. They respect my being hetero equally and care for me and my wife as well. I'm no one to judge. I leave that to my Creator. There is no mention of marriage anywhere in the founding fathers' Constitution. Yes, being with the person you love is a civil right, but it is not a Constitutional right. Again in my opinion, what the citizenry decides via ballot should not ever be changed. Particularly when it is only due to what is killing our country... Political Correctness. Respectfully, J.Miles Bayer, P.M. 1997
ReplyDeleteAn adult's sexual preference makes no difference to me, nor should it. What adults do in the privacy of their own home is entirely their private business. I happen to belong to a lodge that has a high number of brothers who are gay, and they feel comfortable enough with our lodge to be open about it. That's a good thing, because a lodge is supposed to be a place one can consider safe, a home away from home, if you like. A lodge is a place for fellowship and learning. Part of making a good man better in a place like this includes learning to accept one another for who they are. Outside of lodge as adults what they do is their private and confidential business. However, Lex Mc, when a large number of states hold a ballot positively defining "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman the voters have spoken- period. To have SCOTUS reverse the decision of those very same voters is, in my opinion, wrong. All this decision has done is dis-incentivize voters to exercise our constitutional RIGHTS as Americans (as if voter turn-out wasn't low enough already). I stipulate that gay couples already obtained the very same rights and privileges of a man and woman who marry. But apparently, that equality wasn't enough. The word had to be redifined to "include" (spelled; in-your-face). Then add in IF an independent business owner made a conscious decision to not bake a cake, arrange flowers, or photograph a gay union because the independent business owner's strong religious beliefs disagree with the gay union, the business owner's right to refuse service is taken away, and in certain instances, put out of business via "social media" attacks and vilified as homophonic or "hater". Remember, I began this post stating clearly what adults do in their privacy is their business. I have several friends and brothers who happen to be gay, and I love most of them dearly. They respect my being hetero equally and care for me and my wife as well. I'm no one to judge. I leave that to my Creator. There is no mention of marriage anywhere in the founding fathers' Constitution. Yes, being with the person you love is a civil right, but it is not a Constitutional right. Again in my opinion, what the citizenry decides via ballot should not ever be changed. Particularly when it is only due to what is killing our country... Political Correctness. Respectfully, J.Miles Bayer, P.M. 1997
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that we are charged to respect the laws of the land in which we reside and which affords it's protecton universally.
ReplyDeleteMy brothers let us remember , all that's is required: belief in a supreme being, immortality of the soul , being a man .. etc. Petty differences need to be set aside etc..
ReplyDeletespecific religious and personal beliefs have no place in our behavior which will detract from the harmony of being a mason .. so please let's all remember our obligations and that we are all upright and on the level.
and there endeth the lesson..
all the best..
S&F
Steve C.
all irregular or ... conduct that may tend.... the peace and harmony of the same...
ReplyDeleteThere are very fine men that are atheists... they cannot become Masons.
ReplyDeleteThere are no doubt some men that have corrected their ways and now lead perfectly normal lives that have been convicted of a crime... they cannot become Masons.
Women cannot become Masons but they do... in clandestine Lodges. Men in their dotage, madmen or fools cannot become Masons when known to be such.
Why is it then that a gay man who is not an atheist, a convicted felon, in his dotage, not a woman, a madman or a fool cannot then be a Mason? A simple change in one part of the oath that refers to respecting the chastity of a Brother's wife, mother, sister or child to include a Brother himself and his male offspring, siblings and relatives be made by the powers that be.
But alas the following description of the last and most important of the 25 Landmarks of Freemasonry will give that answer:
The last and crowning Landmark of all is, that THESE LANDMARKS CAN NEVER BE CHANGED. Nothing can be subtracted from them-nothing can be added to them-not the slightest modification can be made in them. As they were received from our predecessors, we are bound by the most solemn obligations of duty to transmit them to our successors. Not one jot or one title of these unwritten laws can be repealed; for in respect to them, we are not only willing, but compelled to adopt the language of the sturdy old barons of England, Nolumus leges mutari, let the laws abide.
If the Conventions of Grand Masters (and I believe there are a few) can make and agree upon a change to this to something like: Respect the chastity of a Brother and all of his relatives male or female... then I see no problem.
The aspect of both parties of a same-sex union or marriage could (and would) have on Lodge Harmony, should they part company, could no doubt be handled by the present Apron Charge in the First Degree... that in the case of a pique, both Brothers will be excused from the Lodge to settle their differences and if they cannot... stay out (sic). And: a Brother shall never attend to a Lodge where there is a Brother with whom he has a pique with (also sic).
There are many, many Lodges and Grand Lodges in the world that are not Ancient, Free and Accepted Freemasons and perhaps it would be better to apply to one of them. I am sure as new applicants they do not know the difference... or care.
Our rules are old but still very relevant and perhaps (perhaps) some of them could be revised but it looks like a very long road.
Except, that they can be changed and most of the "Ancient Charges" demand it.
ReplyDeleteAlnwick Manuscript, which explicitly states that we should be changing the charges as time evolves.
ReplyDeleteBrother,
Please allow me to give you good council. The issue of Homosexuality in the Lodge is one that should not be a question, It is not to be allowed.
I would ask you to search the sacred texts and show me where one finds that the behavior is accepted? I would also point out that those texts lead us to the understanding that man was created in the image of G-d and that a perversion of that image (namely Homosexuality) is a direct assault not only on man spiritually, but an assault on G-d and his image.
Our Ancient brethren understood the dangers involved in allowing persons who could become sexually active inside the brotherhood. I would remind you about the MM oath that directly deals with a portion of this aspect (wives, mothers, etc). Imagine if the brethren were to become sexually active among themselves, this not only could, but would become detrimental to peace and harmony. There is no way around it. It would tear at the very fabric of our Masonic Love, the "correct" Love as one brother to another. Can you imagine the distraction that could be caused if our love for one another was twisted in this way.
I understand you might want to "bring Masonry up to speed", but Brother we do not use masonry to become like the world, we use Masonry to transform the world to the way of The Craft.
Brother, you have erred, I hope that you will ponder what you wrote about Homosexuality and the Lodge, our ancient Brethren were correct, and we are in great danger as an organization if we allow this type of behavior among the brethren to proceed. The G-d of our ancient brethren and modern brethren can not be glorified in us when we allow his image to be twisted for that which is not in his nature.
I understand the pressure to be accepting and tolerant, but there are lines of morality (as those who glorify G-d in our actions) we can not cross. To be of The Craft is to "stand out" among the citizenry of the country in which we reside. Please pray to deity and ponder what you have written. I do not write this for any other reason other than to ask you to consider the judgment which you used. Please welcome the council I give and understand I do it to help you and remind others to glorify G-d and not pervert his image.
I did hear you comment on, "I am a Christian". I would ask as the believer how can you "set aside your Christianity"? When I read the sacred text it says, You "become one with Christ"? I would ask you to please question this, and comprehend the possibility of this action. How can one who has become one with Deity remove oneself from him and his judgment?
Brother, I would welcome a counter article about what you wrote about Homosexuality among the Brethren, by you. I feel you are an intelligent Brother capable of doing this, and doing a great service to the fraternity by writing such an article.
Please accept my council as one of love for you and our fraternity, not one as a bigot. I feel we are in great danger as a people and a fraternity when we allow G-d to be twisted, and accept this image of him.
+Non nobis, non nobis Domine sed nomini tuo da gloriam+
Justin D. Crittenden, S.K of KT
The question of homosexuals in the lodge is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. I have known gays (although not openly so in Masonic circles) being Lodge Masters, even Grand Lodge officers with no detriment to the craft. Many more are active members of their own lodges. In the 80's when Aids was not well understood and many people were dying of it, I had the privilege of visiting a Lodge in Amsterdam. One of the Brethren told me how thankful he was for the members of his Lodge to have been a support to him when his partner died of Aids. At that time I thought of how things were so different in North America and I am still appalled that now in the 21st century there are still Brethren who wish to deny a good man the privileges of the Craft for the sole reason of the candidate's natural sexual orientation, since it is not a choice in the same way that one's skin colour is not a choice.
ReplyDeleteAs others have commented, the negative attitude about gays in the Craft must come from the fact that due to their religious upbringing they believe it to me "immoral". I have my own opinions regarding certain people's beliefs, however, I would always uphold that their volume of sacred law should be on the altar with all others, since for them it is a sacred book and would not black ball a man only on the basis of his religious beliefs as the only thing that matters is that he has a belief and is under the tongue of good report. In the same vein, if one's religion views homosexuality as "immoral", that is a private matter and is not to be discussed in Lodge.
Lex, "Morality is subjective. What is morally acceptable to me will be different to you."
ReplyDeleteThis is far from true. Morality is simply those actions and behaviors that lead to good health and well-being for individuals and for communities. Morality is not judgment; judgment is judgment. You cannot simply state that such and such behavior is moral to you. It is the health of your body, or the health of a group of people who engage in the same behavior, which tells you whether such behavior is moral or not. The idea of relative morality is a fantasy.
Skyking, "Contrary to a previous opinion, homosexuality has NOT been expressly forbidden."
ReplyDeleteWhen I put my petition in to join Freemasonry, I was specifically told by the brother who examined me that homosexuals were considered as fools, and were expressly forbidden from joining. He explained that the words "homosexual" and "gay" were not in the social vocabulary at the time the masonic ritual was written and that homosexuals were such an insignificant part of the population that they were simply lumped in with fools.
Hi David, etymologically, the modern usage of the word "fool" comes from the 13th century Old French "fol" (loosely translating to "madman"); however, the ritualistic usage of the word "fool" likely comes from the late 13th century Middle English usage denoting a "sinner, rascal, or impious person." Furthermore, by English Common Law, a "fool" was one who was not of sufficient mental health to enter into a contract or binding agreement. To state that homosexuals were lumped into that category of persons is to fall prey to the "anecdotal" logical fallacy as the word "fool" could mean any number of persons of ill repute or mental instability. Unfortunately, I would need specific evidence that Preston and Anderson had homosexuals in mind when they wrote the rituals and Constitutions--which I doubt exists--in order to be persuaded that early Freemasons singled out homosexuals as being unfit for membership. Notwithstanding, I appreciate your comments and discussion!
ReplyDeleteThese comments--good lord. I was in a Greek fraternity in college. When I graduated, I grew up, and didn't need some childish male-bonding ritualistic group to affiliate with to feel a sense of belonging or to guide my ethics. As a gay man, I have my community to turn to if desired for a sense of solidarity, but we're too mature and independent to need silly secret societies or goofy handshakes to feel like upstanding men. Frankly, I couldn't care less what your opinion on my sexuality is. I have a husband, a job, and a life. Who do you guys think you are?
ReplyDelete