# Gay Marriage and the GL of Tennessee



## My Freemasonry (Sep 15, 2015)

I have received disturbing news from Tennessee. It seems that a gay Brother recently married another man, as per the SCOTUS ruling on national gay marriage. Unfortunately, the Grand Lodge of Tennessee's code Sec. 4.2105 (27) specifically states that it is a Masonic offense to _"To engage in lewd conduct. To promote or engage in homosexual activity. To cohabit immorally in a situation without the benefit of marriage", _and the Grand Master is making moves to expel the Brother.

The Brother in question has issued a detailed response detailing the situation, and has sent copies to several lodges in his area, the Grand Master, and every grand lodge in the US plus the UGLE. He is not going to go quietly, and in light of the recent change in the legal determination of the Supreme Court, I can't say as I blame him. We have perhaps thousands of gay members around the world who have been active, upright Masons for centuries, and it's not the lodge's or Grand Lodge's business what goes on in his bedroom. As long as he's not proselytizing in open lodge, IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! 

Furthermore, official codes that outlaw homosexuality, like other races, are letting themselves in for a major lawsuit and grand lodges should remove such language as soon as possible.

To read the Brother's letter, see the .pdf at http://www.freemasonsfordummies.com/TennesseeGayMarriageCharges.pdf

-----------------------------------------------
UPDATE

Last week in Georgia, the Grand Master, Douglas McDonald, issued an edict with the endeavor to change their adultery provision to additionally read, _"Homosexual activity with anyone subjects the offender to discipline."_

Click image to enlarge:


​

I'm afraid there will be more of this. Brethren should consider that they have all probably been sitting in lodge with homosexuals since the day they became an EA. I strongly encourage Masons to check their state's code and take steps to remove these provisions. I'm no gay activist, but we live in different times now, and the Supreme Court has spoken on the subject. Like it or not, such rules may subject us to lawsuits, and I humbly beseech Grand Masters not to act rashly because homosexuality conflicts with their own personal views of morality. We have had thousands of gay members since our beginnings, almost entirely without incident or without bringing disgrace upon the Craft. What someone does in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of our business, as long as they don't bring their politics into the lodge room.

Continue reading...


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 15, 2015)

And  what would be the basis  of such a law suit?


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Sep 16, 2015)

Welcome to the modern world... Everyone is "offended" by everything.

So much for the internal qualifications determining what makes a man a Mason.


----------



## LAMason (Sep 16, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> And what would be the basis of such a law suit?



You being a Lawyer, I am surprised that you were not aware that the U S Constitution prohibits discrimination against those who choose to engage in buggery.


----------



## Akiles (Sep 16, 2015)

Like My Freemasonry, I think it's none of our business....and I do not care if the brother who is sitting next to me is, or is not, homosexual. At the end of the day, he is my brother, and that's all.




Saludos.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 16, 2015)

There are those who would say the same thing about whether one has a belief in Deity.  Yet, it is a requirement. The homosexuality prohibition  is part of the GL Code in TN. In GLs with which I am familiar, the GM takes a particular obligation regarding requiring others to adhere to the Code.  



Akiles said:


> Like My Freemasonry, I think it's none of our business....and I do not care if the brother who is sitting next to me is, or is not, homosexual. At the end of the day, he is my brother, and that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LAMason (Sep 17, 2015)

There are many things that Regular Freemasonry does not tolerate, among them are:
·  Non belief in a Supreme Being
·  Accepting women as members
·  Certain heterosexual activities by it members

Anderson’s Constitutions states:  “A Mason is obliged by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law”. So what is this “moral Law”?  Is it immutable or does it change if the societal and sexual mores change?  In my opinion it is immutable.  If it is immutable that means that it has the same meaning now as it did at the time Anderson penned his “Constitutions”, so the next question is how did Anderson view the “moral Law” and what was the origin or basis of this “moral Law”.

If we consider the era and that Anderson and Desaguliers were both Christian Clergymen it is obvious that they considered the basis for “moral Law” to be derived from the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  It is also clear that adultery and even fornication are considered immoral, as evidenced by the Master Mason obligation.  It is ridiculous to believe that homosexual acts were not also considered immoral.

If homosexual acts of a member is none of our business then why are heterosexual acts of our members our business?  The fact is they become our business when someone submits a petition.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Sep 18, 2015)

LAMason said:


> In my opinion it is immutable.  If it is immutable that means that it has the same meaning now as it did at the time Anderson penned his “Constitutions”, It is ridiculous to believe that homosexual acts were not also considered immoral.


But it was ok to bang a dude in roman times.  Prostitution was accepted untill just recently.  So its only immutable if it get more strict?  Be gay is not immoral.  Im not gay bit i have friends that are and they are better people then most heteros i know


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 18, 2015)

It was okay to commit incest in Rome as well. Our fraternity does not date from Rome.  Prostitution has  been outlawed for at least 300 years.  We have GLs which require Christianity as a belief. We have GLs which discriminate on the basis of race.  I don't understand why this is the discrimination which raises such ire.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Sep 19, 2015)

Ive never heard of a either of those...if i had id say something about that too.  The point i was making is that what is socially and moraly acceptable does change with the times


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 21, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> It was okay to commit incest in Rome as well. Our fraternity does not date from Rome.  Prostitution has  been outlawed for at least 300 years.  We have GLs which require Christianity as a belief. We have GLs which discriminate on the basis of race.  I don't understand why this is the discrimination which raises such ire.


Well said brother Cook


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 23, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> It was okay to commit incest in Rome as well. Our fraternity does not date from Rome.  Prostitution has  been outlawed for at least 300 years.  We have GLs which require Christianity as a belief. We have GLs which discriminate on the basis of race.  I don't understand why this is the discrimination which raises such ire.


Very good answer. I have to say I had not looked at it this way before. Something to ponder over alright.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 23, 2015)

LAMason said:


> ......If homosexual acts of a member is none of our business then why are heterosexual acts of our members our business



Under my MM ob they are not. What i might personally have an interest in is "chastity" ..... here members have failed in charges based on sexual activity out of wedlock because it was found "chasity" was not violated.... but that's probably a whole other (tyled) thread...

Yes, i do have an interest in the activities of my brother, but that does not make my a hyperactive policeman. Who's he hurting is my test? ( and 'himself' is in the mix - some will think but never talk of "damnation" .. and 'family values')

That said, the GL in question will argue the bro voluntarily submitted to the rules when initiated. The bro might argue he didnt know them or in not taking action against him earlier, there was implied approval for his lifestyle ? Or, as a last resort, might he not argue he was seeking " the benifit of marriage"  as required under the rules and those rules stated about contradict each other ? ( interesting idea, but when read down, that argument won't fly). It's not a clear cut case. I'd resign in good standing and apply over the boarder and visit 'my' lodge... but why the hell should he do that?

Maybe the promises we makes are just anachronisms. Maybe freemasonry itself  is one big anachronism? *sigh* It may be so, but its my anachronism 

One thing i do know....I *HATE* it when we end up in court. It means the people in our system failed.


----------

