# Shots Fired!



## coachn

https://masonictao.com/2016/03/08/shots-fired/


----------



## CLewey44

coachn said:


> https://masonictao.com/2016/03/08/shots-fired/



Wow and some of the posts underneath the article are unreal. "Sister" men and this and that....


----------



## hanzosbm

Well, that was quick.  The lodge here in California that I am petitioning for affiliation just called me.  They couldn't remember if it was TN or KY that I was a member of.  Thankfully, it's KY, but I'm guessing had it been TN I would've politely been told I could no longer attend.


----------



## hanzosbm

I've gotta say, this whole issue does worry me a bit.  Not for this specific situation, but for the precedent. 

I'm not familiar with anything in the old charges or constitutions that have anything regarding sexual orientation.  Furthermore, I agree with GLoCA that this is a sectarian issue and therefore unMasonic.  However, reading a lot of the comments (and between the lines) it seems like CA did this as a way to distance themselves from an unpopular opinion of the public based on these issues.  In this particular case, fine.  However, we've discussed the issue of transgender individuals and how that might be interpreted by various Grand Lodges.  In short, I'm fine with breaking ties over Masonic criteria, but I'm worried about it being used for political reasons down the road.


----------



## Mel Knight

DC suspends recognition with GA & Tenn as well


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

I hate that this happened within the craft, but this may be the change some of these primitive thinking southern Grand lodges need.

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

So wouldn't this make GA and TN clandestine to CA and DC, before you say no, this is how they classify PHA GL all because they don't recognize them.

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook

CA doesn't use the term clandestine. It is better to just say recognition is suspended.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

Glen Cook said:


> CA doesn't use the term clandestine. It is better to just say recognition is suspended.


So would this mean that CA and DC masons could no longer hold Masonic intercourse with TN and GA masons ?


----------



## Glen Cook

Travelling Man91 said:


> So would this mean that CA and DC masons could no longer hold Masonic intercourse with TN and GA masons ?


That is my understanding.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

Interesting. I'd like to see how this is going to play out. Freemasonry is so divided on the issue's that shouldn't even matter. 

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

I honestly don't think the GL of GA and TN even care. They are so behind in times, they probably see this as a good thing. Disclaimer, in no way am I referring to each individual brother in the GL. I'm referring to the GL brothers that made the decision to suspend and expel these brothers.


----------



## JJones

I agree that GA and TN probably won't care. IMO if they interpret behavior as unmasonic then they have a right to take whatever actions they see fit. In a world where things like gender are becoming more ambiguous, some brethren may feel as though lines have to be drawn somewhere.

Maybe I'm just backwards also though. You know what they say, the wiser you are the less you begin to speak.


----------



## darsehole

This is ridiculous.

I'd like to know exactly when the practice of BDS has become the only politically correct response to any given situation that anyone disagrees with?

What gives California or DC the right to pass judgment on another jurisdiction? They GL of two different states don't like homosexuals this year, so everyone has to jump on some politically correct band wagon and pretend they are holier than thou. Explain to me how punishing an entire jurisdiction over one decision that a GL made benefits the whole of freemasonry? How does it make the craft stronger? How does it make us more desirable in the eyes of the general public? 

This raises too many questions. Do the GL's of DC or Cali recognize every PHA that UGLE recognize? For that matter, if freemasonry in these jurisdictions are so perfect, than why do PHA even exist, shouldn't all men meet on the level?

These boycotts won't change anyone's mind, and they won't make the craft any more desirable for young men of any sexual orientation. All they do is divide the fraternity even further, and make certain jurisdictions look silly for jumping on the latest band wagon. 

My heart goes out to any brothers from Tennessee or Georgia that are visiting Cali or DC, and are now boycotted by some authoritarian do-gooders that put political correctness before brotherly love. 

Shame on the Grand Lodges of Tennessee and Georgia for discriminating homosexuals, but shame on California and DC for turning their backs on their fraternal brothers.


----------



## Glen Cook

I am surprised that this action was taken without intermediate steps.  When GEKT formed its clandestine rectified rite, Mark  Mason Hall gave notice it would consider withdrawing recognition at its next general purposes meeting. GEKT cleaned up its act before the meeting and no action was required. If CA and had announced their intention at CGMNA less than a month ago, it would have given notice both to TN and DC, but also to its sister GLs who may have supported the action, and lead to change without this sanction.  Further, it is widely reported that this matter was to be addressed at the next TN Communication.  Why not give notice and wait another six weeks for the matter to be addressed?

Those who remember the NY-DC suspension of recognition over Lebsmon will remember that brethren of both jurisdictions were effected.  Whole the geographical distance in this case militates against that factor, I am unclear whether DC would allow its members to sit in tyled appendant body meetings (I've been cited to the CA code and informed that jurisdiction would allow this).  As a regional or national officer / committee member in three organizations, this is of more than a little interest to mr.


----------



## tldubb

Politics plain and simple!


----------



## GrandJojo

A quick question - is discrimination against homosexuals legal anywhere in the USA? My understanding, is that it's not - based on a number of Supreme Court decisions.


----------



## hanzosbm

GrandJojo said:


> A quick question - is discrimination against homosexuals legal anywhere in the USA? My understanding, is that it's not - based on a number of Supreme Court decisions.


Not to the best of my knowledge.  However, if you're asking if that means that TN and GA are thereby not following the law, I would point out that it is also not legal to discriminate against women, yet they are not permitted within the fraternity.


----------



## GrandJojo

But freemasonry for women exists - as co-masonry. Irregular, but very popular on the continent and in England.


----------



## hanzosbm

darsehole said:


> What gives California or DC the right to pass judgment on another jurisdiction? They GL of two different states don't like homosexuals this year, so everyone has to jump on some politically correct band wagon and pretend they are holier than thou. Explain to me how punishing an entire jurisdiction over one decision that a GL made benefits the whole of freemasonry? How does it make the craft stronger? How does it make us more desirable in the eyes of the general public?


While I don't like how this is playing out, think about  this from another point of view.  TN and GA feel (for some reason I still can't understand) that homosexuals should not be part of Freemasonry.  Let's change the circumstances.  Let's say that TN and GA decided to start admitting women.  Clearly, this is a move that California and DC (as well as about every other jurisdiction) would disagree with.  So, what would give them the right to pass judgment on another jurisdiction?  It's not judgment, it's recognition.  CA and DC are saying that they no longer believe that TN and GA meet the criteria necessary to be considered Freemasons.  How is punishing an entire jurisdiction over one decision benefiting the whole of freemasonry?  It's not, nor was it ever intended to, it's about saying that they do not feel that those grand lodges fit the criteria to be considered freemasons.  How does it make the craft stronger?  In the same way that it has since 1717; by binding all lodges under common criteria in order to be recognized as one cohesive unit.  How does it make us more desirable in the eyes of the general public?  ...who cares?  This isn't about the general public.

Recognition is about meeting certain landmarks that show that one grand lodge is similar enough to the others to be considered part of the group.  CA and DC feel that GA and TN no longer fit that model.  Now...we can argue about whether or not GA and TN have broken any of the landmarks (not an argument I'd care to participate in) and therefore whether CA and DC have grounds for this decision, but we need to recognize this for what it is.


----------



## hanzosbm

GrandJojo said:


> But freemasonry for women exists - as co-masonry. Irregular, but very popular on the continent and in England.


Those groups can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that they are recognized as Freemasonry.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

hanzosbm said:


> Those groups can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that they are recognized as Freemasonry.


I'd never hold Masonic intercourse with a woman nor visit a lodge that admits women.


----------



## GrandJojo

My understanding is that my Grand Lodge (the Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium) feels that Recognition is not just about meeting criteria for Recognition. If this was the case, I think a lot more PH GLs would be recognized, even by European Grand Lodges. So yes - judgement can be part of Recognition, which is a voluntary act.

I also try to think about our gay members, how do they feel in terms of us recognizing a Grand Lodge that bans them. Note I am at odds with recognizing Scandanavian GLs. I feel less ambigious with women because Freemasonry exists for them, and has for a very long time. Recognition from us could even be irrelevant for them. The UGLE considers them to be Freemasons, but does not recognize them.


----------



## GrandJojo

Travelling Man91 said:


> I'd never hold Masonic intercourse with woman nor visit a lodge that admits women.


Nor would I. I've sworn that I would not.


----------



## dfreybur

Travelling Man91 said:


> So wouldn't this make GA and TN clandestine to CA and DC ...



Often folks have no idea that clandestine and irregular mean different things.  Clandestine means not having a valid lineage.  Irregular means not practicing the landmarks.

The assertion is that banning by orientation brings sectarian religious discussion into tiled meetings.  Since the origin of the objection to homosexuality comes from one line of one book in the Old Testament that means the objection comes from exactly one religion.  That's how the word "sectarian" is defined.

The declaration is not that GA and TN are clandestine.  Their lineage from the original GLs is well established.

The declaration is that GA and TN has chosen to cease practicing regular Masonry.  We'll see how the vote goes in California.

I'll write my mother lodge in California to urge a vote to ratify this GM Decision.  I'll discuss with my wife a vacation in San Francisco to go to GL to actually vote for it.

Every Brother gets to decide for himself what practices are and aren't regular.  Every jurisdiction gets to decide for themselves what practices are and aren't regular - At which point the Brothers of that jurisdiction agree or leave or start working on repeal.


----------



## dfreybur

Travelling Man91 said:


> So would this mean that CA and DC masons could no longer hold Masonic intercourse with TN and GA masons ?



Exactly.  Go to the social event before the tiled meeting - No issue.  Do not pass the tiler to attend the tiled meeting or degree.

Caveat - If both are visiting in another jurisdiction they need to know their exact rules.  Some jurisdictions say to act like the locals when visiting some they could both stay.  Some jurisdiction say to follow our own restrictions when visiting so one or both would have to leave.

Not being able to attend the tiled meeting is enough that many won't bother to attend non-tiled social events.


----------



## dfreybur

darsehole said:


> What gives California or DC the right to pass judgment on another jurisdiction?



The landmark against introducing sectarian discussion in a tiled meeting.  When you violate one of the landmarks you exist regular Masonry.

I get that not everyone is going to agree that banning gays equals introducing sectarian discussion in a tiled meeting.  Does anyone disagree that's a landmark, though?



> Explain to me how punishing an entire jurisdiction over one decision that a GL made benefits the whole of freemasonry?



When you discard the sanctuary feature of Masonry in one place you damage Masonry everywhere.  Pulling recognition is the only option available between jurisdictions.



> Do the GL's of DC or Cali recognize every PHA that UGLE recognize? For that matter, if freemasonry in these jurisdictions are so perfect, than why do PHA even exist, shouldn't all men meet on the level?



I'm not sure why you try to change the subject or why you pretend that history didn't happen, but I'll answer the first question anyways -

GLofDC is the first jurisdiction to grant blanket recognition - Automatically recognizing any PHA jurisdiction that gains local recognition. When another PHA state is recognized DC no longer has to vote.  For them it's already handled and they automatically send the recognition notice.  Multiple states have emulated the DC model for blanket recognition.  Be clear what blanket recognition is and isn't.

California votes recognition for PHA jurisdictions every time a local recognition happens.  Two jurisdictions have fallen through the cracks.  I have active correspondence with the California Gr Sec on the topic.  I need to submit legislation on the matter.  I suspect that when the GM sees the paperwork he'll add it to the agenda instead of listing it among the topics voted on.



> These boycotts won't change anyone's mind



Was that true in Florida a couple of years ago?  At least on jurisdiction voted that they would pull recognition if the edict banning by named religion was ratified.  In the case of TN that's the same situation - TN has the chance to vote down their edict and stay regular.



Glen Cook said:


> I am surprised that this action was taken without intermediate steps.  When GEKT formed its clandestine rectified rite, Mark  Mason Hall gave notice it would consider withdrawing recognition at its next general purposes meeting. GEKT cleaned up its act before the meeting and no action was required. If CA and had announced their intention at CGMNA less than a month ago, it would have given notice both to TN and DC, but also to its sister GLs who may have supported the action, and lead to change without this sanction.  Further, it is widely reported that this matter was to be addressed at the next TN Communication.  Why not give notice and wait another six weeks for the matter to be addressed?



I read the GM Decision.  TN does in fact have the chance to have recognition if they vote down this move into irregularity.

I echo your question about advance announcement back at GA and TN.  They are the ones who decided to exit regular practice so they are the ones who should have announced at the CGMNA conference.

I'm not surprised that CA and DC took a long time to act.  I've wondered if any jurisdiction would act.


----------



## dfreybur

GrandJojo said:


> A quick question - is discrimination against homosexuals legal anywhere in the USA? My understanding, is that it's not - based on a number of Supreme Court decisions.



Gender preference are not protected statuses.

Making discrimination against the rules has a limited meaning.  It means state and local governments can't discriminate but it is still allowed for businesses to discriminate.

Giving gender, gender preference and gender orientation protected status means businesses aren't allowed to discriminate.

The situation varies in many details by state and evolves year to year.


----------



## dfreybur

Travelling Man91 said:


> I'd never hold Masonic intercourse with woman nor visit a lodge that admits women.



I also understand that attending any of their social events does not count under those rules.  Any of us are allowed to attend their non-tiled social events.

So far I have been invited to one such event.  I didn't attend.  I knew I could but couldn't quite bring myself to rearranging my calendar to get to the event.  In my own practice I'm slightly more restrictive than the letter of the law on this topic, so far.  But I know I was allowed to go without violating any rule as long as their was no tiler and I had no need to pass a tiler.


----------



## Ripcord22A

Glen Cook said:


> When GEKT formed its clandestine rectified rite, Mark  Mason Hall gave notice it would consider withdrawing recognition at its next general purposes meeting.


 
GEKT???  Had to googel this one...Grand Ecampent Knight Templar..is this correct?  How could they form their own rite?  Do you have a link or something that I could read about this incident.  I am not a York Rite Mason but I would still like to know about it


----------



## Ripcord22A

dfreybur said:


> The declaration is that GA and TN has chosen to cease practicing regular Masonry.


 
I dont see how the decisions make them irregular.  There is nothing that mentions Homosexulity in any thing ive ever read in masonry.  we stop females from joing why couldnt they stop homsexuals? 

Do i agree with the ruling...NO!  I think GLs have WAY MORE IMPORTANT things to worry about then who their members are legally having relations with.  Now if that Gay brother goes to a Gay rally and presents him self as a Freemason then that is another issue all together.  In the incident in TN they voted these brothers in, I believe one of them was even the master of his Lodge.  Hes obviously a good man,  His lodge brothers attended his "wedding."  The way GL found out was he posted pics on the FB.  If they are going to expell them for being gay should they not also expel the brothers that attended and took part in the wedding?

Being gay doesnt make you a bad or immoral person.  I believe that the act of being gay is an immoral act, thats my opinion.  Some people belive looking at pornography is immoral, guess what ive done that, especially when i was deployed.  That doesnt make me a an immoral person.

I support CAs decision.


----------



## hanzosbm

dfreybur said:


> The landmark against introducing sectarian discussion in a tiled meeting.  When you violate one of the landmarks you exist regular Masonry.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this is a landmark.  It is a charge given to EAs, but that has no bearing on recognition.


----------



## MRichard

hanzosbm said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this is a landmark.  It is a charge given to EAs, but that has no bearing on recognition.



Not only that but since each grand lodge is sovereign, there is not much consistency in the landmarks they use.


----------



## darsehole

dfreybur said:


> When you discard the sanctuary feature of Masonry in one place you damage Masonry everywhere.  Pulling recognition is the only option available between jurisdictions.
> 
> They had many options. Pulling recognition was a strong arm tactic that was politically driven. Is putting political opinions before fraternal brotherly love any damage to freemasonry?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you try to change the subject or why you pretend that history didn't happen, but I'll answer the first question anyways -
> 
> I'm not changing the subject. Discrimination against blacks and discrimination against homosexuals has something in common-discrimination. I thought that would be rather obvious.
> 
> The fact that PHA still feels a need to exist in many jurisdictions openly suggests that there is some form of racial divide in freemasonry. How is drawing attention to past discriminations pretending that history didn't happen? Your insinuations are nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that true in Florida a couple of years ago?  At least on jurisdiction voted that they would pull recognition if the edict banning by named religion was ratified.  In the case of TN that's the same situation - TN has the chance to vote down their edict and stay regular.



TN is regular. California, DC and Belgium simply pretend they aren't. As long as UGLE says TN is regular, who cares what California says, except perhaps DC and Belguim, so far. 

The truth is I don't like homophobia in the fraternity either, but we aren't changing anyone's minds. Nobody's. At best, TN and Georgia will bend and allow homosexuals in lodge, but they will still be ostracized. All that will be the end result is a distaste from TN and GEO towards Cali, DC, Belgium and whoever else. You'll just reinforce and justify their hatred. It doesn't work. Ever. Ask North Korea. Or Cuba. Or Venezuela. Or Israel. Or Iran. 

You want to change their minds? Visit their lodge and confront them. Over and over again. Tell them this isn't YOUR vision of freemasonry. Convince them. If that's too difficult, wait them out. 

Progression and tolerance take time, especially where old prejudices die hard.  Everyone thinks they can hold their breath and stomp their feet, and magically the world will change. You need to win their hearts and minds. That takes time, patience and persuasion. That's how you beat hatred.


----------



## darsehole

@ JamestheJust

Which GL's are no longer regular over this matter? Did I miss something?


----------



## darsehole

I think regularity is the big one. Only one regular lodge per jurisdiction will be recognized by United Grand Lodge of England.  

It doesn't matter in California, DC or Belgium recognize TN & GEO or not, as long as UGLE recognizes them, they are regular. 

If another GL pops up in TN or GEO, it will be irregular as long as UGLE still recognizes the "homophobic" ones as regular. If Cali, DC or Belgium recognize a irregular lodge, then they jeopardize their relationship with UGLE, and could be clandestine. 

At least that is my understanding. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Glen Cook

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> GEKT???  Had to googel this one...Grand Ecampent Knight Templar..is this correct?  How could they form their own rite?  Do you have a link or something that I could read about this incident.  I am not a York Rite Mason but I would still like to know about it


Sorry for the acronym. See http://www.myfreemasonry.com/thread...ion-of-the-grand-encampment-of-the-usa.16958/


----------



## hanzosbm

darsehole said:


> As long as UGLE says TN is regular, who cares what California says, except perhaps DC and Belguim, so far.


You seem to be under the opinion that the UGLE is somehow superior to the Grand Lodges of each individual States within the US. Or that the Grand Lodges in some way are subservient to the UGLE. Who cares what the Grand Lodge of California says? Probably more than who cares what the UGLE says.


----------



## Glen Cook

darsehole said:


> I think regularity is the big one. Only one regular lodge per jurisdiction will be recognized by United Grand Lodge of England.
> 
> It doesn't matter in California, DC or Belgium recognize TN & GEO or not, as long as UGLE recognizes them, they are regular.
> 
> If another GL pops up in TN or GEO, it will be irregular as long as UGLE still recognizes the "homophobic" ones as regular. If Cali, DC or Belgium recognize a irregular lodge, then they jeopardize their relationship with UGLE, and could be clandestine.
> 
> At least that is my understanding. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


Well, not quite.  Absent treaty, UGLE will recognize only one jurisdiction. edit: There are three regular GLs sharing jurisdiction  in CA by mutual consent, including Iran in Exile. 

No, UGLE isn't the arbiter of regularity. If you are a member of a SGL (state GL), then your GL recognizes a different GL than does UGLE


----------



## MRichard

JamestheJust said:


> Quite right,  I was blurring recognition with regularity.  Still is there not a scope for new GL that are recognized?



First of all, those grand lodges only suspended relations presumably by grand master edicts. It would probably have to be voted on at their annual communication or meeting if they wanted to withdraw recognition.

Secondly, a new grand lodge would need a legitimate charter. Who is going to give them one?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

Glen Cook said:


> Well, not quite.  Absent treaty, UGLE will recognize only one jurisdiction. They recognize three GLs in CA.
> 
> No, UGLE isn't the arbiter of regularity. If you are a member of a SGL (state GL), then your GL recognizes a different GL than does UGLE


What three GLs are recognized in CA ?


----------



## Glen Cook

Travelling Man91 said:


> What three GLs are recognized in CA ?


GL of CA


Travelling Man91 said:


> What three GLs are recognized in CA ?


Pls see edit


----------



## MRichard

Travelling Man91 said:


> What three GLs are recognized in CA ?



http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges .


Glen Cook said:


> GL of CA
> 
> Pls see edit



Does the Iran in Exile grand lodge actually meet or have lodges there?


----------



## Glen Cook

GLI exile does meet. The hosted one dinner at the world conference.


----------



## Ripcord22A

MRichard said:


> Secondly, a new grand lodge would need a legitimate charter. Who is going to give them one?


 GLs dont have charters.  A GL is formed by 3 or more subordinate lodges from other jurisdictions that band together and form a GL, there are a lot of steps that I am not familiar with, once said steps are complete they request recognition from other GLs, once those other GLs recognize them, the subordinate lodges turn in their chraters/warrents to their original GLs and the new GLs issue them a new charter.  But the GL does not have a charter


----------



## MRichard

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> GLs dont have charters.  A GL is formed by 3 or more subordinate lodges from other jurisdictions that band together and form a GL, there are a lot of steps that I am not familiar with, once said steps are complete they request recognition from other GLs, once those other GLs recognize them, the subordinate lodges turn in their chraters/warrents to their original GLs and the new GLs issue them a new charter.  But the GL does not have a charter



The lodges would need charters so they could form a grand lodge. Again, who is going to give them a charter?


----------



## Ripcord22A

MRichard said:


> The lodges would need charters so they could form a grand lodge. Again, who is going to give them a charter?


 Well, Im not saying this would work, but if enough of the GLoTN bonded together and could prove that the current GL was not acting in ways that reflected the views of the Craft in TN as a whole they could form their own GL and go to the other State GLs and plead their case as to why they should be the legitimate GL in TN. ANd if they got recognized then send a deligation to UGLE.  If the UGLE agreed they could then pull recognition from the current GL and give it to the ne GL.  But, there are plenty of states out there that recognize lodges that the UGLE does not and there is no problem with that, as long as the GL that is being recognized is regular.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

Is the UGLE considering pulling recognition from the GL of TN and GA ?

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## dfreybur

Yesterday I did several individual responses.  Today I took my time and merged then into one amalgamated response.



hanzosbm said:


> Now...we can argue about whether or not GA and TN have broken any of the landmarks (not an argument I'd care to participate in) and therefore whether CA and DC have grounds for this decision, but we need to recognize this for what it is.



That is exactly what it is according to the letter of edict from one of my 3 Grand Masters.  A violation of the landmark against introducing sectarian religion into lodge.  The prohibition against homosexuality appears in exactly one religious lineage and is thus sectarian.  Do not be confused by whether it's from your religious lineage or someone else's religious lineage.  That doesn't matter when judging a matter sectarian.



darsehole said:


> TN is regular.  California, DC and Belgium simply pretend they aren't.



Fun user handle by the way.

So you say and if you're a member in either TN or GA of course that will be your stance.  Two of my 3 GMs currently hold TN and GA to be regular.  One does not.

In return you simply pretend that a religious rule that comes from exactly one religious lineage does not count as sectarian and thus does not violate a landmark.



> As long as UGLE says TN is regular, who cares what California says, except perhaps DC and Belguim, so far.



On many recognition matters UGLE leads the way.  On other matters they have equal standing with every other jurisdiction.  On this the UGLE is just one jurisdiction among many.



> You want to change their minds? Visit their lodge and confront them. Over and over again. Tell them this isn't YOUR vision of freemasonry. Convince them. If that's too difficult, wait them out.
> 
> Progression and tolerance take time, especially where old prejudices die hard.  Everyone thinks they can hold their breath and stomp their feet, and magically the world will change. You need to win their hearts and minds. That takes time, patience and persuasion. That's how you beat hatred.



When CT first granted PHA recognition at least one southern US jurisdiction pulled recognition over it.  Nearly everyone laughed at them for pulling recognition.  Time did in fact wound that heal and heal that wound.  Who now remembers CT with anything but admiration for their progress?  No one I care to emulate.

Now GA and TN have stepped forward to bring sectarian rule.  Time will wound that heal and heal that wound, be clear about that.  If they don't relent soon it will only be a matter how some number of Masonic funerals as they watch the flow of new candidates reduce.  Who later will remember this as example different from the religious bigotry that was rejected in FL three years ago?  No one I care to emulate.



JamestheJust said:


> If GLs are no longer recognized as regular then there is scope for new regular GLs to be established.



True in theory, unlikely in practice.  A better projection is this will run out in a similar manner as PHA recognition.  Very slowly.



MRichard said:


> First of all, those grand lodges only suspended relations presumably by grand master edicts. It would probably have to be voted on at their annual communication or meeting if they wanted to withdraw recognition.



In GA it has already been voted on and approved by their delegates at annual communication.  Too late for them.

In TN and CA it is currently by edict/decision that needs to be voted on at annual communication.

The delegates in TN have the chance to vote against being known world wide as homophobes who destroyed the sanctuary aspect of Masonry in their territory.  The letter from CA at least makes it clear that if the TN edict is voted down recognition is back the day that vote outcome is released to the world.

The delegates in CA have the chance to vote for or against the CA edict.  I am already discussing with my wife the option of going to San Francisco this year.



> Secondly, a new grand lodge would need a legitimate charter. Who is going to give them one?



Others have answered this already but I'll repeat - Grand lodges grant charters.  They don't receive charters.  What makes grand lodges legitimate is *recognition*.

This is an important point - The legitimacy of any one GL is determined by how many other GLs recognize them and by how many that don't.

That's worth repeating - The legitimacy of any one GL is determined by how many other GLs recognize them.  When recognition is pulled by some that means the legitimacy has been questioned by some.  When recognition is pulled by many that means the legitimacy has been refuted by many.

Others have answered the charter question - When a group of lodges band together to form a new jurisdiction they turn in their old charters to their former jurisdictions and the new jurisdiction writes news ones for them.  Becoming a founding lodge in a new jurisdiction is a HUGE leap of faith that the new jurisdiction is legitimate and will thus be recognized immediately.

That is why I don't think any third jurisdiction will be formed.  I think every other GL in America will wait for them to come back to the fold, very much like every other GL in America is waiting for the southern states to recognize PHA.  Just as no one is pulling recognition over failure to recognize PHA I don't think adjacent states are going to charter lodges in the territory held by homophobic jurisdictions.  (We might call them Obama/Clinton Affiliate lodges after leaders who integrated on the topic of gender).



Travelling Man91 said:


> What three GLs are recognized in CA ?



This has a previous answer as well as a current answer.

Back in the 1990s when California voted on PHA recognition they did so in several annual steps.  One year they declared PHA to be regular in origin and practice.  The next year the GL of Mexico requested permission to charter a lodge in Imperial county near the Mexican border.  The GLofCA voted to allow that lodge to be chartered as it set the precedent that when asked they can waive the principle of exclusive territory without dropping territorial sovereignty in general.  Then recognition was voted in.  For a while GLofCA, MWPHGLofCA+HI and GL of Mexico operated lodges in California.  Some time in the 20+ years since then that Mexican lodge joined GLofCA and the overlap ceased.

The current answer was already answered - GL of Iran in Exile.  They work to get Masonry allowed in Iran with the goal to move back there and found lodges.  I pray for their eventual success.


----------



## Ripcord22A

@Companion Joe Being that you are a member of the GLoTN what is your take and what are the brohters saying in your jurisdiction on this subject?  Is it true that the GM issued a gag order on the subject? and that any brohter that speaks up for the couple in question will be immediatly expelled right along with them?


----------



## MRichard

Well, assuming the nuclear option happens on either or both grand lodges. Then the PHA grand lodge in either or both states could request recognition. Then they would be the senior grand lodge? Hmm. Maybe?


----------



## hanzosbm

dfreybur said:


> That is exactly what it is according to the letter of edict from one of my 3 Grand Masters.  A violation of the landmark against introducing sectarian religion into lodge.  The prohibition against homosexuality appears in exactly one religious lineage and is thus sectarian.  Do not be confused by whether it's from your religious lineage or someone else's religious lineage.  That doesn't matter when judging a matter sectarian.


I haven't read the ruling from TN or GA, but are they claiming this ruling against homosexuals on religious grounds?  If so, then yes, I can see it violating a landmark.  But what if they say 'no homosexuals because we think it's icky'?


----------



## Ripcord22A

hanzosbm said:


> I haven't read the ruling from TN or GA, but are they claiming this ruling against homosexuals on religious grounds?  If so, then yes, I can see it violating a landmark.  But what if they say 'no homosexuals because we think it's icky'?


 In the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice)  Sodomy is against the law, also anything other than missionary position is illegal as well.  So I guess it is possible to make things illegal cause you dont like it,


----------



## hanzosbm

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> In the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice)  Sodomy is against the law, also anything other than missionary position is illegal as well.  So I guess it is possible to make things illegal cause you dont like it,


Exactly.  I checked and the US Supreme Court overturned all sodomy laws in the US in 2003 (and the repeal of DADT essentially recently overturned it in the UCMJ) so they can't claim that it is for legal reasons, but I remember reading somewhere (I think it was Anderson's Constitution) that anything not covered in the landmarks is up for grabs to make rulings on.  Heck, they could even claim that they find it immoral and therefore that person wouldn't be a good man.  Morality is subjective, so it can't really be proven incorrect.  At the same time, CA can say that bigotry is immoral as a justification for cutting ties. 
Just like a court case, I think that there's a number of different directions that each party could go to make their case.


----------



## Ripcord22A

hanzosbm said:


> (and the repeal of DADT essentially recently overturned it in the UCMJ)


 
Not really.  It is still there and if I went home and had back door relations with my wife and she had photographic proof and then we got in a afight and she left me later down the road she could take that to my commander and i could be charged with it.  Its hard to prove hence why i said photographic proof.  Adultery is also illegal as per the UCMJ and is just as hard to prove.


----------



## hanzosbm

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Not really.  It is still there and if I went home and had back door relations with my wife and she had photographic proof and then we got in a afight and she left me later down the road she could take that to my commander and i could be charged with it.  Its hard to prove hence why i said photographic proof.  Adultery is also illegal as per the UCMJ and is just as hard to prove.


Exactly.  I remember questioning that when I was in.  Until I saw what happens in the barracks and how much photographic (and video) evidence there was. 

Just...wow.


----------



## MasterBulldawg

To say the Grand Lodges of Tennessee and Georgia are homophobic because they do not allow homosexuals to join is a bit extreme as they are not advocating physical violence or hatred towards homosexuals just the exclusion from a private club.

Playing Devils  Advocate I can make a case for homosexuals be excluded from Freemason that based on ancient times and our 3rd degree obligation. We all know homosexuals have been around since Biblical times as it was recorded in Solomon and Gomorrah. So when the Ancients set about coming up with the third degree they would have included certain male members of the Masons family along with the female members if they had thought that homosexuals would be joining the fraternity. Also I was told the reason why women do not join the fraternity this is about sexual tension and also to keep adulterous affairs out of the lodge as you know with other fraternities that are both male and female there have been scandals of the affairs between members. Can you imagine the lodge where there's two popular and an extremely active gay couples and for whatever reason there was an affair between the couples could split the lodge brothers having to choose one side or the other. I have to question weather the grand lodges California and DC would have taking this action if there hadn't been a public outcry. Having said all this is my personal opinion that each Grand Lodge should be responsible for its rules and regulations. I will follow my Grand Lodge but I will vote at Annual Communication also.


----------



## MasterBulldawg

Also on the PH GLs - Most assume the F&AM GLs are the ones withholding recognition but what if its the otherway around?


----------



## MRichard

MasterBulldawg said:


> Also on the PH GLs - Most assume the F&AM GLs are the ones withholding recognition but what if its the otherway around?



Cause the senior grand lodge has to consent or waive jurisdiction. Not to mention the location of the problem in the Southern Confederate states except WV. I am sure there are problems on both sides.


----------



## Glen Cook

MasterBulldawg said:


> .
> ....
> Can you imagine the lodge where there's two popular and an extremely active gay couples and for whatever reason there was an affair between the couples could split the lodge brothers having to choose one side or the other. I have to question weather the grand lodges California and DC would have taking this action if there hadn't been a public outcry. Having said all this is my personal opinion that each Grand Lodge should be responsible for its rules and regulations. I will follow my Grand Lodge but I will vote at Annual Communication also.



I don't have to imagine this. I had to deal with a situation when a couple in a lodge broke up, and the jilted (who was not a member of that lodge) kept coming back to the lodge, demonstrating jealousy, and finally was barred from visiting by vote of the lodge. 

We also have a married couple in a lodge where one was not elected Master (he was not proficient and was a difficult person) and so the unelected person has joined a clandestine lodge. It now leaves a distrust of the remaining brother, who is a nice guy.


----------



## MasterBulldawg

MRichard said:


> Cause the senior grand lodge has to consent or waive jurisdiction. Not to mention the location of the problem in the Southern Confederate states except WV. I am sure there are problems on both sides.


From what  my understanding of  the reasons why PHA in my state has not seeked recognition is they find we are not discriminating enough in who we allow to join.


----------



## David Carroll jr

This is one discussion I am choosing to stay out of because it's just another family squabble and when the Waring factions kiss and make up there are going to be a lot of hurt feelings.


----------



## Ressam

There is an existance of  3 "types" of Love.
1. Natural Love: Sexual Love between man & a woman. It's more related with instincts. And posterity.  
2. Kinship Love: Loving all relatives. Loving your mom, dad, grandpa, sisters, brothers, etc.
3. Spiritual Love: The Most Important type of Love. Loving your neighbours, friends. Christ's Love.

IMO, LGBT-community is related with 1'st type of Love.
This is "road to nowhere". This is road to extinction. This is not within The Harmony of The Universe.
I'm absolutely sure that -- GAOTU is not approvin' this kind of relations!
But, of course, we have to tolerate them! But not promote, of course!
Hold on, guys! Stay strong on this "Life Exam"!


----------



## Glen Cook

David Carroll jr said:


> This is one discussion I am choosing to stay out of because it's just another family squabble and when the Waring factions kiss and make up there are going to be a lot of hurt feelings.


No kissing in TN and GA


----------



## MRichard

MasterBulldawg said:


> From what  my understanding of  the reasons why PHA in my state has not seeked recognition is they find we are not discriminating enough in who we allow to join.



Could you elaborate on that? Are you saying they have a problem with who you let in the Grand Lodge of Florida? Who is the problem?


----------



## dfreybur

MRichard said:


> Well, assuming the nuclear option happens on either or both grand lodges. Then the PHA grand lodge in either or both states could request recognition. Then they would be the senior grand lodge? Hmm. Maybe?



If UGLE pulls recognition over this issue *by calling it a move away from regularity*, MWPHGLofGA and MWPHGLofTN should very definitely request recognition from UGLE as they will then be the only regular jurisdictions in their territory.  The UGLE has declared the emergence of PHA Masonry regular based on the circumstances of the time and based on the fact that African 459 tried to stay loyal to and in contact with the Premier GL of England who had issued their charter.  The UGLE has declared the PHA family regular.  They only recognize when local recognition is in place so it should work.

I would be surprised in the UGLE would cite irregularity as the reason for pulling recognition.  I predict that the UGLE will avoid comment as long as they can hoping this American matter will settle down on its own without input from them.



hanzosbm said:


> I haven't read the ruling from TN or GA, but are they claiming this ruling against homosexuals on religious grounds?  If so, then yes, I can see it violating a landmark.  But what if they say 'no homosexuals because we think it's icky'?



They cite moral grounds, thus dodging the fact that what they are doing is bringing a religious law from exactly one religious family into their assemblies.  It probably never even occurred to them that's what they were doing.

If they took up a policy of dropping cubes, no one would have noticed for a long time and there's no reason for other jurisdictions to pull recognition.  The locals would notice and the new generation would avoid Masonry actively instead of passively.  Those jurisdictions would go the way of the Odd Fellows.






MasterBulldawg said:


> Also on the PH GLs - Most assume the F&AM GLs are the ones withholding recognition but what if its the otherway around?



It is easily shown that many PHA jurisdictions refuse to recognize.  Here's a quote from the GLofCA recognition list as of 2014 starting page 459 of the 2014 Proceedings -

The Grand Lodge of California has extended an offer of mutual recognition with
the following Prince Hall Grand Lodges, but mutual recognition has not yet
been established. Visitation between our members and members of Lodges
under the jurisdiction of these Grand Lodges cannot yet be made. When mutual
recognition is established, the Grand Secretary will notify our Lodges in writing.

ARIZONA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Arizona and Its Jurisdiction*;
CONNECTICUT: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Connecticut, Inc. (29); HAWAII:
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Hawaii and Its Jurisdiction*; ILLINOIS: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of Illinois INDIANA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Indiana, Inc.*;
IOWA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Iowa and Jurisdiction*; KANSAS: Prince
Hall Grand Lodge of Kansas and Its Jurisdiction*; MARYLAND: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of Maryland and Its Jurisdiction*; MICHIGAN: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of the Jurisdiction of Michigan*; MINNESOTA: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge Jurisdiction of Minnesota, Inc.*; NEW JERSEY: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of New Jersey, Inc.*; NEW YORK: Prince Hall Grand Lodge
Jurisdiction of New York, Inc.*; NORTH CAROLINA: Prince Hall Grand
Lodge of North Carolina and Jurisdictions, Inc.*; OHIO: Prince Hall Grand
Lodge of the State of Ohio, Inc.*; OKLAHOMA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge
Jurisdiction of Oklahoma*; VIRGINIA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge Jurisdiction of
Virginia*; WASHINGTON: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington State and
Its Jurisdiction*; WISCONSIN: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, Inc.*

That's 18 PHA jurisdictions that have not bothered to recognize California by not responding to California's offer.  In comparison when I tabulate the list of PHA jurisdictions that have returned California's offer I discovered there are 2 PHA jurisdictions California fails to list.  I have corresponded with the Gr Sec a few times to see if that's a misprint* or those 2 just fell through the cracks at the time.

This means that the number of PHA jurisdictions that ignores California is 9 times the number that California ignores.  And twice the number that don't have local recognition.  That's only for California.  I bet there is a LOT of missing recognition completeness in both branches of our family.

To PMs, WMs, SWs and JWs in all states I recommend that you look up your own recognition list and submit legislation to complete the set.

I am a PM in Illinois so I have a vote there as well - Illinois recognizes every PHA with local recognition (called "blanket") and does not even track which PHA jurisdictions have responded.

I am in the line in TX so for the moment I don't have a vote in that jurisdiction yet - It'll be a few years before I look up the Texas list and ask that it be completed.

*Based on discussion with my wife last night I am highly likely to attend California GL this October.  Since I'm going I need to force this issue by submitting legislation because I'll be there to defend it.  No one will object to completing the list.


----------



## Ripcord22A

Gotta approach this in pieces...........



MasterBulldawg said:


> Playing Devils  Advocate I can make a case for homosexuals be excluded from Freemason that based on ancient times and our 3rd degree obligation. So when the Ancients set about coming up with the third degree they would have included certain male members of the Masons family along with the female members if they had thought that homosexuals would be joining the fraternity..


 
In my Jurisdictions this is a false statement as that part alludes to the relationships being unwated and illegal.



MasterBulldawg said:


> Also I was told the reason why women do not join the fraternity this is about sexual tension and also to keep adulterous affairs out of the lodge as you know with other fraternities that are both male and female there have been scandals of the affairs between members.


 
I am all for keeping females out, even though it would be interesting to see how they would be clothed for the degrees....ha..see that right there is why we need to keep it males only.  Also as someone stated before, its guy time, and its guy time where the wives know their hubbys are safe from the prying hands of other women.



MasterBulldawg said:


> Can you imagine the lodge where there's two popular and an extremely active gay couples and for whatever reason there was an affair between the couples could split the lodge brothers having to choose one side or the other..


 
As Brother Glen already mentioned, its happend and it will happen again.



MasterBulldawg said:


> I have to question weather the grand lodges California and DC would have taking this action if there hadn't been a public outcry. Having said all this is my personal opinion that each Grand Lodge should be responsible for its rules and regulations. I will follow my Grand Lodge but I will vote at Annual Communication also.


 
They probably would not have.  If no public outcry no way for them to know.  And you should vote.  At next weeks annual communication my lodges deligates are going to stand and speak and suggest that the GL send a letter to TN and GA condeming these actions, not their entire GL just these actions.


----------



## Companion Joe

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> @Companion Joe Being that you are a member of the GLoTN what is your take and what are the brohters saying in your jurisdiction on this subject?  Is it true that the GM issued a gag order on the subject? and that any brohter that speaks up for the couple in question will be immediatly expelled right along with them?



All,
I have read this and many other sites daily with great interest to keep abreast on people's thoughts on this situation, and this will be my only post (at least until after our annual communication later this month). Because I hold various Grand appointments, anything I say could be taken - and certainly taken out of context - by anyone in the world as official position. Please understand and accept my stance on that.

I will say this: To partisans on _either side of the aisle_ both in my home state and around the world, it is easy to swing the sword of righteousness when what you _really know_ are half truths at best.

The one thing I will go on record as saying, and you can sing it from the highest mountain tops, "My mama's only son is intelligent enough not to dive head first into an Internet dumpster fire."

May brotherly prevail.


----------



## Brother JC

MasterBulldawg said:


> Also on the PH GLs - Most assume the F&AM GLs are the ones withholding recognition but what if its the otherway around?


Initials are confusing since "state" GLs use both sets. are you saying PH is holding out, or State? It definitely works both ways.


----------



## MasterBulldawg

[quote uid=14748 name="MasterBulldawg" post=157406]Also on the PH GLs - Most assume the F&amp;AM GLs are the ones withholding recognition but what if its the otherway around?[/QUOTE]<br />Initials are confusing since "state" GLs use both sets. are you saying PH is holding out, or State? It definitely works both ways.

I am saying it is my understanding that PHA is not seeking recognition nor giving it.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MasterBulldawg

[quote uid=14748 name="MasterBulldawg" post=157431]From what  my understanding of  the reasons why PHA in my state has not seeked recognition is they find we are not discriminating enough in who we allow to join.[/QUOTE]<br /><br />Could you elaborate on that? Are you saying they have a problem with who you let in the Grand Lodge of Florida? Who is the problem?

I am not entirely sure I was told that the reason why Prince Hall does not seek recognition is because we're not selective enough in who we admit as members. I have heard rumors that Prince Hall dues is significantly higher than our own dues. It seems to me we may be blue collar to their white collar.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MRichard

MasterBulldawg said:


> I am not entirely sure I was told that the reason why Prince Hall does not seek recognition is because we're not selective enough in who we admit as members. I have heard rumors that Prince Hall dues is significantly higher than our own dues. It seems to me we may be blue collar to their white collar.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



Unfortunately, that sounds like rumors and familiar rumors at that. Could be true or could be false. There are quite a few PHA members on here from Florida. Would be interesting to hear their take on it. @BroBook @mrpierce17


----------



## mrpierce17

I believe our dues are pretty similar here in Florida I don't think that's the reason we are not yet in amenity


----------



## The Undertaker

Ressam said:


> There is an existance of  3 "types" of Love.
> 1. Natural Love: Sexual Love between man & a woman. It's more related with instincts. And posterity.
> 2. Kinship Love: Loving all relatives. Loving your mom, dad, grandpa, sisters, brothers, etc.
> 3. Spiritual Love: The Most Important type of Love. Loving your neighbours, friends. Christ's Love.
> 
> IMO, LGBT-community is related with 1'st type of Love.
> This is "road to nowhere". This is road to extinction. This is not within The Harmony of The Universe.
> I'm absolutely sure that -- GAOTU is not approvin' this kind of relations!
> But, of course, we have to tolerate them! But not prom
> 
> 
> Ressam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an existance of  3 "types" of Love.
> 1. Natural Love: Sexual Love between man & a woman. It's more related with instincts. And posterity.
> 2. Kinship Love: Loving all relatives. Loving your mom, dad, grandpa, sisters, brothers, etc.
> 3. Spiritual Love: The Most Important type of Love. Loving your neighbours, friends. Christ's Love.
> 
> IMO, LGBT-community is related with 1'st type of Love.
> This is "road to nowhere". This is road to extinction. This is not within The Harmony of The Universe.
> I'm absolutely sure that -- GAOTU is not approvin' this kind of relations!
> But, of course, we have to tolerate them! But not promote, of course!
> Hold on, guys! Stay strong on this "Life Exam"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ote, of course!
> Hold on, guys! Stay strong on this "Life Exam"![/QUO
> 
> So according to YOUR three "types" of love, every straight relationship also falls into the first category. So simplistic it makes no sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ressam

Hi, Sir.
You've made some mistakes with quotation.
Please, expalain deeper, what you are not agree with(if you want).


----------



## jermy Bell

I'm confused,  is this the way that it was in the beginning?  Or do we as a whole, change and keep changing things to suit the needs of others in order to be politically correct?


----------



## coachn

jermy Bell said:


> I'm confused,  is this the way that it was in the beginning?  Or do we as a whole, change and keep changing things to suit the needs of others in order to be politically correct?


<cough> Freemasonry has changed from its beginnings continually and usually due to changing social, political, and cultural norms.


----------



## jermy Bell

But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable? I think if these people that don't meet our qualifications,  we shouldn't have to bow down to meet others needs. Isn't masonry a private club so to speak ? I mean if you belong to the VFW doesn't that mean that you can't join unless  your a vet ? Why should masonry be any different ? And social change is not a good enough answer.


----------



## coachn

jermy Bell said:


> But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable? I think if these people that don't meet our qualifications,  we shouldn't have to bow down to meet others needs. Isn't masonry a private club so to speak ? I mean if you belong to the VFW doesn't that mean that you can't join unless  your a vet ? Why should masonry be any different ? And social change is not a good enough answer.


You did not ask for an answer that you would accept.  You asked a question.  I provided to you an answer.  It did not have to be a good one.


----------



## MRichard

jermy Bell said:


> But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable? I think if these people that don't meet our qualifications,  we shouldn't have to bow down to meet others needs. Isn't masonry a private club so to speak ? I mean if you belong to the VFW doesn't that mean that you can't join unless  your a vet ? Why should masonry be any different ? And social change is not a good enough answer.



Wouldn't it be nice if all freemasons were just and upright men and judged potential candidates on the internal and not external? We don't always see the same undesirables.


----------



## Brother JC

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting; this whole debacle came about, not because an applicant was turned down, but because of the expulsion of two Brothers. Two Brothers who had been regularly Initiated, Passed, and Raised and had sat in Lodge for years with the men who suddenly turned their backs on them.
None of us knows what every Brother in our lodge does every minute of his day. Nor should we.


----------



## CLewey44

jermy Bell said:


> But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable? I think if these people that don't meet our qualifications,  we shouldn't have to bow down to meet others needs. Isn't masonry a private club so to speak ? I mean if you belong to the VFW doesn't that mean that you can't join unless  your a vet ? Why should masonry be any different ? And social change is not a good enough answer.



I assume the undesirables are gay guys? I don't recall at any point during my Masonic journey, from the petition to being raised, being asked if I currently was or ever had been a gay man. I don't know the qualifications your talking about either. If it's a matter of "living in sin" then anyone that smokes, dips, drinks, over-eats, looks at porn, looks at other women sexually at all, divorced and any other endless sort of sins one can commit, would be considered "living in sin". Masonic law is not just Christian law or Islamic law or whatever, it's all religions in Masonry. All of them... It's subjective from person to person. Not every gay guy is walking around with flowers in their hair or cross dressing either. Some you may never know it. If you want to black ball someone, however, because you assume they are gay, you have that right. But just consider not judging someone because they are different than you.

As for social change, black men weren't always allowed in lodges. Allowing them has turned out completely fine. Eventually, gay men will be joining as well. Btw, I don't think 90% of lodges have a bunch of young, effeminate  gay men beating down the doors to join and hang out with some middle to older age guys. Just saying, it's really not a big problem I don't imagine and like I said, you can always blackball someone if you want to do so if you don't feel they'd be a good addition to your lodge.

The only reason I'm saying this is because we are supposed to be open minded to others and not judging them in any way. If someone is hurting others? I say they don't get to join. If they own some business that rips people off or they are just joining to get business connections, then they don't deserve to get in. If they were gay and not in it for the right reasons, they don't get in I say. But if they are growing spiritually and philosophically, I don't see a problem. If someone is minding their own business and not bothering others, I don't have a problem with others lifestyles.

Respectfully


----------



## Ressam

CLewey44 said:


> I assume the undesirables are gay guys? I don't recall at any point during my Masonic journey, from the petition to being raised, being asked if I currently was or ever had been a gay man. I don't know the qualifications your talking about either. If it's a matter of "living in sin" then anyone that smokes, dips, drinks, over-eats, looks at porn, looks at other women sexually at all, divorced and any other endless sort of sins one can commit, would be considered "living in sin". Masonic law is not just Christian law or Islamic law or whatever, it's all religions in Masonry. All of them... It's subjective from person to person. Not every gay guy is walking around with flowers in their hair or cross dressing either. Some you may never know it. If you want to black ball someone, however, because you assume they are gay, you have that right. But just consider not judging someone because they are different than you.
> 
> As for social change, black men weren't always allowed in lodges. Allowing them has turned out completely fine. Eventually, gay men will be joining as well. Btw, I don't think 90% of lodges have a bunch of young, effeminate  gay men beating down the doors to join and hang out with some middle to older age guys. Just saying, it's really not a big problem I don't imagine and like I said, you can always blackball someone if you want to do so if you don't feel they'd be a good addition to your lodge.
> 
> The only reason I'm saying this is because we are supposed to be open minded to others and not judging them in any way. If someone is hurting others? I say they don't get to join. If they own some business that rips people off or they are just joining to get business connections, then they don't deserve to get in. If they were gay and not in it for the right reasons, they don't get in I say. But if they are growing spiritually and philosophically, I don't see a problem. If someone is minding their own business and not bothering others, I don't have a problem with others lifestyles.
> 
> Respectfully



Sir!
IMHO -- nobody is judging gays!
The issue is just simple here!
LGBT-relationships are just -- *NOT wihin The Harmony of The Universe*. That's all & simple.
But everyone have to tolerate them! They are also Children of God! And our Brothers&Sisters.


----------



## Warrior1256

CLewey44 said:


> The only reason I'm saying this is because we are supposed to be open minded to others and not judging them in any way. If someone is hurting others? I say they don't get to join. If they own some business that rips people off or they are just joining to get business connections, then they don't deserve to get in. If they were gay and not in it for the right reasons, they don't get in I say. But if they are growing spiritually and philosophically, I don't see a problem. If someone is minding their own business and not bothering others, I don't have a problem with others lifestyles.


VERY well said brother.


----------



## MRichard

Ressam said:


> Sir!
> IMHO -- nobody is judging gays!
> The issue is just simple here!
> LGBT-relationships are just -- *NOT wihin The Harmony of The Universe*. That's all & simple.
> But everyone have to tolerate them! They are also Children of God! And our Brothers&Sisters.



Just love it when the non-freemasons tell us the error of our ways. Bravo


----------



## Warrior1256

MRichard said:


> Just love it when the non-freemasons tell us the error of our ways. Bravo


True.


----------



## coachn

MRichard said:


> Just love it when the non-freemasons tell us the error of our ways. Bravo


Who's the non-freemason?


----------



## Ressam

MRichard said:


> Just love it when the non-freemasons tell us the error of our ways. Bravo



Excuse me! It's just the -- "outside point of view"! 
Objective criticism. For the improvement.


----------



## MRichard

coachn said:


> Who's the non-freemason?



Ressam


----------



## coachn

MRichard said:


> Ressam


Ah!  That explains it.  Thanks.


----------



## Ressam

coachn said:


> Ah!  That explains it.  Thanks.



Yo! Coach!
Is it possible for me to be -- The "Mason Without An Apron"!? 
Does that -- "statue" exists?


----------



## dfreybur

jermy Bell said:


> I'm confused,  is this the way that it was in the beginning?  Or do we as a whole, change and keep changing things to suit the needs of others in order to be politically correct?



The function of lodge as sanctuary from religious oppression has *absolutely* been from the beginning.  Lodge is and always has been a place that a man may go to be free from religious judgment by oppressors.

Your asserting this is a matter of political correctness does not make it so.  How do you defend your stance?  The stance I've heard so far is a judgment that practicing homosexuals are morally bad.  That's a matter for the ballot box not an excuse to abandon the religious sanctuary function of lodge.  That's a judgment that comes from exactly one family of religions so it is inherently sectarian.



jermy Bell said:


> But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable?



That's what the ballot box is for.  That's what Masonic trials are for.



Ressam said:


> IMHO -- nobody is judging gays!



The topic is absolutely about judging gays.  If gays were not judged by some as immoral in action this would never have happened.


----------



## MRichard

Ressam said:


> Yo! Coach!
> Is it possible for me to be -- The "Mason Without An Apron"!?
> Does that -- "statue" exists?



I can't answer for Coach but I don't think so. Lol


----------



## The Undertaker

Ressam said:


> Hi, Sir.
> You've made some mistakes with quotation.
> Please, expalain deeper, what you are not agree with(if you want).


Read your interpretation "types" of Love, number one: every heterosexual relationship falls within that "type," ergo akin to hour opinion about LGBT relationships. Pigeon-holing, it seems, and off-course for the discussion.


----------



## The Undertaker

dfreybur said:


> The function of lodge as sanctuary from religious oppression has *absolutely* been from the beginning.  Lodge is and always has been a place that a man may go to be free from religious judgment by oppressors.
> 
> Your asserting this is a matter of political correctness does not make it so.  How do you defend your stance?  The stance I've heard so far is a judgment that practicing homosexuals are morally bad.  That's a matter for the ballot box not an excuse to abandon the religious sanctuary function of lodge.  That's a judgment that comes from exactly one family of religions so it is inherently sectarian.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the ballot box is for.  That's what Masonic trials are for.
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is absolutely about judging gays.  If gays were not judged by some as immoral in action this would never have happened.


Agreed.


----------



## Ressam

The Undertaker said:


> Read your interpretation "types" of Love, number one: *every heterosexual relationship falls within that "type,*" ergo akin to hour opinion about LGBT relationships. Pigeon-holing, it seems, and off-course for the discussion.



[1. Natural Love: Sexual Love *between man & a woman*. It's more related with instincts. And *posterity*.]
How Sir?!
If a man will have sex with another man -- there will be *no child!
*


----------



## CLewey44

Ressam said:


> [1. Natural Love: Sexual Love *between man & a woman*. It's more related with instincts. And *posterity*.]
> How Sir?!
> If a man will have sex with another man -- there will be *no child!*



Every time you've had sex with a woman in your life (whether you loved them or not), you were doing it strictly to create a baby, Ressam-abi?


----------



## CLewey44

dfreybur said:


> The function of lodge as sanctuary from religious oppression has *absolutely* been from the beginning.  Lodge is and always has been a place that a man may go to be free from religious judgment by oppressors.
> 
> Your asserting this is a matter of political correctness does not make it so.  How do you defend your stance?  The stance I've heard so far is a judgment that practicing homosexuals are morally bad.  That's a matter for the ballot box not an excuse to abandon the religious sanctuary function of lodge.  That's a judgment that comes from exactly one family of religions so it is inherently sectarian.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the ballot box is for.  That's what Masonic trials are for.
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is absolutely about judging gays.  If gays were not judged by some as immoral in action this would never have happened.



So where's the double-like button?


----------



## Ressam

CLewey44 said:


> Every time you've had sex with a woman in your life (whether you loved them or not), you were doing it strictly to create a baby, Ressam-abi?


You may not believe me -- but, I expected that kind of question! 
You also could tell that -- of course, not every woman can become pregnant. 
If you don't understand that "Type1" -- that's OK! 
But, at least, consider this subject as a "Whole 3 types"(not taking any 1 from context).


----------



## Warrior1256

dfreybur said:


> The function of lodge as sanctuary from religious oppression has *absolutely* been from the beginning. Lodge is and always has been a place that a man may go to be free from religious judgment by oppressors.
> 
> Your asserting this is a matter of political correctness does not make it so. How do you defend your stance? The stance I've heard so far is a judgment that practicing homosexuals are morally bad. That's a matter for the ballot box not an excuse to abandon the religious sanctuary function of lodge. That's a judgment that comes from exactly one family of religions so it is inherently sectarian.


Great!


----------



## coachn

*LODGE WARS!*


----------



## Warrior1256

Funny AND thought provoking.Good one coachn!


----------



## coachn

Warrior1256 said:


> Funny AND thought provoking.Good one coachn!


Thanks!


----------



## Bloke

A good find. For me to watch a 5 min vid like that, it must have really held my interest. Mainly I think because it was clever and funny.

Thanks for posting it


----------



## coachn

Bloke said:


> A good find. For me to watch a 5 min vid like that, it must have really held my interest. Mainly I think because it was clever and funny.
> 
> Thanks for posting it


You're most welcome.  Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## The Traveling Man

From what I hear the discussion on the matter happened yesterday (Wednesday) and the vote should come later today..... The countdown begins....


----------



## Warrior1256

The Traveling Man said:


> From what I hear the discussion on the matter happened yesterday (Wednesday) and the vote should come later today..... The countdown begins....


I case I miss it please keep us informed brother.


----------



## coachn

http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2016/03/tennessee-retains-ban-on-homosexual-and.html


----------



## Warrior1256

coachn said:


> http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2016/03/tennessee-retains-ban-on-homosexual-and.html


Very disappointing. However, I don't think GLs in other states or countries pulling recognition is the answer. If GLs do this every time that they disagree with the actions of another GL where does it end? Just my personal opinion.


----------



## Ripcord22A

So not only do the ban homosexual actions but also opposite sex cohabitation?  so a brohter cant move in ith their GF/fiance?  thats even dumberer then banning gay stuff.......SMH!!


----------



## dfreybur

Warrior1256 said:


> Very disappointing. However, I don't think GLs in other states or countries pulling recognition is the answer. If GLs do this every time that they disagree with the actions of another GL where does it end? Just my personal opinion.



Unfortunately because jurisdictions are sovereign there are few disciplinary tools available.

TN and GA will definitely lose a lot of the new generation.  Their choice.  There are functioning regular jurisdictions in those territories if anyone decided to recognize them and force two issues at the same time ...


----------



## MasterBulldawg

[quote uid=15064 name="Warrior1256" post=158299]Very disappointing. However, I don't think GLs in other states or countries pulling recognition is the answer. If GLs do this every time that they disagree with the actions of another GL where does it end? Just my personal opinion.[/QUOTE]<br /><br />Unfortunately because jurisdictions are sovereign there are few disciplinary tools available.<br /><br />TN and GA will definitely lose a lot of the new generation.  There choice.  There are functioning regular jurisdictions in those territories if anyone decided to recognize them and force two issues at the same time ...


Are you sure they (PHA GL) don't have any rules or regulations  against homosexuality?

Also  if the GMs for these two states we're not white but in fact Jewish or Muslim would there still be the same cry that their religion was playing a role in their decision?

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Bloke

I feel sorry for them. They have hurt themselves and their members. I would HATE to be a member there... what would I do ? Resign ? Lobby ? I would be looking for an old active warrant from another GL I guess, but man, it puts their members who passionately voted to end this ban in a tricky situation. And yes, I understand if it was lifted, it would put those who believe in it also in a tricky situation. Someone needs to make the best speech of their life to move those brothers into this Century and to realise their own religious moral beliefs have no place in a Constitution and/or homophobia is "unmasonic".

I think we need to move from admonishing Tenn to trying to change their thinking, but that is a very idealistic statement..


----------



## Warrior1256

Bloke said:


> I feel sorry for them. They have hurt themselves and their members.





Bloke said:


> Someone needs to make the best speech of their life to move those brothers into this Century and to realise their own religious moral beliefs have no place in a Constitution and/or homophobia is "unmasonic".





Bloke said:


> I think we need to move from admonishing Tenn to trying to change their thinking, but that is a very idealistic statement..


All very good points brother.


----------



## MRichard

MasterBulldawg said:


> Are you sure they (PHA GL) don't have any rules or regulations  against homosexuality?
> 
> Also  if the GMs for these two states we're not white but in fact Jewish or Muslim would there still be the same cry that their religion was playing a role in their decision?



What does the PHA grand lodge have to do with the decisions made by the state grand lodges in GA & TN. It wouldn't matter what race or religion the GMs were, wrong is wrong. Your religious beliefs should not be imposed on masonry.


----------



## Warrior1256

MRichard said:


> What does the PHA grand lodge have to do with the decisions made by the state grand lodges in GA & TN. It wouldn't matter what race or religion the GMs were, wrong is wrong. Your religious beliefs should not be imposed on masonry.


Agreed!


----------



## MasterBulldawg

↑
Are you sure they (PHA GL) don't have any rules or regulations against homosexuality?

Also if the GMs for these two states we're not white but in fact Jewish or Muslim would there still be the same cry that their religion was playing a role in their decision?
What does the PHA grand lodge have to do with the decisions made by the state grand lodges in GA & TN. It wouldn't matter what race or religion the GMs were, wrong is wrong. Your religious beliefs should not be imposed on masonry.

Last edited: Today at 5:22 PM
Entered 01 May 2014
Passed 02 October 2014
Raised 29 January 2015

Memorial Lodge #1298

Grand Lodge of Texas

Arabia Temple A.A.O.N.M.S.

*My Question on PHA GLs is in response to *
*Doug Freyburger comment on how Reg GL s should pull recognition of the GLs of TN & GA and and give recognition to the PHA GLs of the same states to make them change the rules.

As for the religion question  I have seen post here and over sites to the effect of ...The White Grand Master imposing his Christian  beliefs....i was trying to if the was a bias against white men or Christians.  I know society is reluctant call out / criticize a minority and wanted to see if that true of masons as well.

*


----------



## MRichard

MasterBulldawg said:


> *As for the religion question  I have seen post here and over sites to the effect of ...The White Grand Master imposing his Christian  beliefs....i was trying to if the was a bias against white men or Christians.  I know society is reluctant call out / criticize a minority and wanted to see if that true of masons as well.*



You wanted to see if there was a bias against the white grand masters in those states? There is so much irony & hypocrisy in that thought.


----------



## MasterBulldawg

MRichard said:


> You wanted to see if there was a bias against the white grand masters in those states? There is so much irony & hypocrisy in that thought.



Let me put it this way: I wanted to know if the bias is that a white Grand Master that is Christian and he makes an unpopular decision would be assumed that his religion played a part in it. Or do minorities get the benefit of the doubt when they make decisions that religion didn't play a part.


----------



## MRichard

MasterBulldawg said:


> Let me put it this way: I wanted to know if the bias is that a white Grand Master that is Christian and he makes an unpopular decision would be assumed that his religion played a part in it. Or do minorities get the benefit of the doubt when they make decisions that religion didn't play a part.



We are way past what the grand masters did. It has been voted on at the Annual Communication in each state.


----------



## dfreybur

MasterBulldawg said:


> Let me put it this way: I wanted to know if the bias is that a white Grand Master that is Christian and he makes an unpopular decision would be assumed that his religion played a part in it. Or do minorities get the benefit of the doubt when they make decisions that religion didn't play a part.



No double standards from me.  If someone's a racist I don't care what race he is.  I've seen racism in multiple directions.  Same comment on religious bigotry from me.  I'm seen religious bigotry directed at my religion by outsiders and at outsiders by members of my religion.  None get a pass from me.

Both GA and TN brought religious law from one specific sect into lodge.  It is irrelevant to me which branch of our family they are in.  If other GLs have the same ban, that's on them.  They have remained quiet about it.

I have in the past noted that I am powerless in the face of the ballot box.  If individuals are voting based on either type of bigotry I can't know.  I could  switch lodges but so far the Brothers in my own lodges have lived up to our standards.  I can't know if they found it easy to confer degrees upon a brother of a different color or on an alternate VSL but there we were together at those degrees.

This has become about jurisdiction law so it has moved to another level.

Religious freedom has always been my primary hot button in Masonry.  I live in a country with freedom of religion and that's thanks to our Masonic for bearers.  There are countries in the world where I can be killed without consequence just for admitting what religion I am a member of.  I did not petition until I became certain the order lives up to its high standards on religious tolerance.  My mother jurisdiction California has long lived up to the high standards on the topic.  Most of the time Brothers everywhere live up to the high standards.  I've attended alternate VSL degrees in more than one jurisdiction now.  When the Florida GM went religious bigot 3 years ago the delegates in Florida proved him an aberration and lived up to the high standards.  When Mississippi delegates recently voted against theocracy they lived up to the high standards.  The GMs in CA, DC and BE have taken a stance to live up to the high standards.  Examples, my Brothers, worthy of all emulation.  Examples, my Brothers, in the majority among us thanks to that spark of the divine within each of us.

During the Florida incident I was circulating legislation in the 2 jurisdictions where I am a PM able to do so to pull recognition should that edict have been upheld, and the Florida delegates proved their principles so that paperwork became unnecessary.  Now one of my 3 MW GMs has beat me to the legislation.

PHA recognition has always been my secondary hot button in Masonry.  When I petitioned my mother lodge two PHA friends signed as character witnesses (California petions have lines for character witnesses) for me before I even knew who Prince Hall was.  Now the two issues have collided and this year I have submitted legislation in CA to recognize MWPHGLofGA and MWPHGLofTN in place of GLofGA and GLofTN.  Unlikely to pass but I'm trying.  It would solve two issues with one move because GLofGA and GLofTN would have to get past both issues.

The clock of GL Masonry ticks once per year, out of sequence jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Now's the time to leverage one issue to handle both.  One step at a time in a process that will take many steps.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

dfreybur said:


> No double standards from me.  If someone's a racist I don't care what race he is.  I've seen racism in multiple directions.  Same comment on religious bigotry from me.  I'm seen religious bigotry directed at my religion by outsiders and at outsiders by members of my religion.  None get a pass from me.
> 
> Both GA and TN brought religious law from one specific sect into lodge.  It is irrelevant to me which branch of our family they are in.  If other GLs have the same ban, that's on them.  They have remained quiet about it.
> 
> I have in the past noted that I am powerless in the face of the ballot box.  If individuals are voting based on either type of bigotry I can't know.  I could  switch lodges but so far the Brothers in my own lodges have lived up to our standards.  I can't know if they found it easy to confer degrees upon a brother of a different color or on an alternate VSL but there we were together at those degrees.
> 
> This has become about jurisdiction law so it has moved to another level.
> 
> Religious freedom has always been my primary hot button in Masonry.  I live in a country with freedom of religion and that's thanks to our Masonic for bearers.  There are countries in the world where I can be killed without consequence just for admitting what religion I am a member of.  I did not petition until I became certain the order lives up to its high standards on religious tolerance.  My mother jurisdiction California has long lived up to the high standards on the topic.  Most of the time Brothers everywhere live up to the high standards.  I've attended alternate VSL degrees in more than one jurisdiction now.  When the Florida GM went religious bigot 3 years ago the delegates in Florida proved him an aberration and lived up to the high standards.  When Mississippi delegates recently voted against theocracy they lived up to the high standards.  The GMs in CA, DC and BE have taken a stance to live up to the high standards.  Examples, my Brothers, worthy of all emulation.  Examples, my Brothers, in the majority among us thanks to that spark of the divine within each of us.
> 
> During the Florida incident I was circulating legislation in the 2 jurisdictions where I am a PM able to do so to pull recognition should that edict have been upheld, and the Florida delegates proved their principles so that paperwork became unnecessary.  Now one of my 3 MW GMs has beat me to the legislation.
> 
> PHA recognition has always been my secondary hot button in Masonry.  When I petitioned my mother lodge two PHA friends signed as character witnesses (California petions have lines for character witnesses) for me before I even knew who Prince Hall was.  Now the two issues have collided and this year I have submitted legislation in CA to recognize MWPHGLofGA and MWPHGLofTN in place of GLofGA and GLofTN.  Unlikely to pass but I'm trying.  It would solve two issues with one move because GLofGA and GLofTN would have to get past both issues.
> 
> The clock of GL Masonry ticks once per year, out of sequence jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Now's the time to leverage one issue to handle both.  One step at a time in a process that will take many steps.


Why don't you think it would pass ?


----------



## The Traveling Man

dfreybur said:


> PHA recognition has always been my secondary hot button in Masonry.  When I petitioned my mother lodge two PHA friends signed as character witnesses (California petions have lines for character witnesses) for me before I even knew who Prince Hall was.  Now the two issues have collided and this year I have submitted legislation in CA to recognize MWPHGLofGA and MWPHGLofTN in place of GLofGA and GLofTN.  Unlikely to pass but I'm trying.  It would solve two issues with one move because GLofGA and GLofTN would have to get past both issues.
> 
> The clock of GL Masonry ticks once per year, out of sequence jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Now's the time to leverage one issue to handle both.  One step at a time in a process that will take many steps.



I think they should recognize PHA in TN and GA for a few reasons:

1.) If CA recognized those PHA Lodges it may lead to the other GL's doing the same. 

2.) It will show that they did not share the same views as those GL's, with regards to their regularity.

3.) It will put GA and TN in a tough situation when it comes time for them to ask for recognition.

One question I have tho. If the other GL's pull recognition, will that allow for Lodges in those Jurisdictions to withdraw and form a new GL, and then apply for recognition??


----------



## dfreybur

Travelling Man91 said:


> Why don't you think it would pass ?



A bridge too far.  So far not all other US GLs have pulled recognition from TN and GA.  Some have come out as neutral.  If CA recognizes PHA in TN and GA some number of other GLs who still recognize TN and GA will see it as a breach of sovereignty.

What I want is to require TN and GA to clean up their act on both topics before coming back into the fold.  What I do not want is for other GLs who already recognize PHA locally to pull recognition for CA over a sovereignty battle.


----------



## dfreybur

The Traveling Man said:


> One question I have tho. If the other GL's pull recognition, will that allow for Lodges in those Jurisdictions to withdraw and form a new GL, and then apply for recognition??



Even GLs that don't recognize PHA understand that PHA is regular.  Even GLs that don't officially admit to that understand it.

In TN and GA any lodge that wanted to go back to regularity by changing affiliation faces a choice - Switch to PHA solve also solve their racism issue, or go independent and hope some GL is going to ignore the racism implied by the act and recognize anyways.

Recognizing a set of rebel lodges means you'd never be able to recognize the GL that triggered the issue.  TN and/or GA could vote next year to return to regularity but it would be too late.  That means recognizing a set of rebel lodges is too extreme a move for any GL to make.

No.  They have to 1) work within their system by pushing to return to regularity, 2) exit their system by switching to PHA, but not 3) rebel and form a new GL.


----------



## Warrior1256

dfreybur said:


> What I want is to require TN and GA to clean up their act on both topics before coming back into the fold. What I do not want is for other GLs who already recognize PHA locally to pull recognition for CA over a sovereignty battle.


I agree except that I think pulling recognition from a GL because we disagree with something that we  disagree with is not the answer.


dfreybur said:


> That means recognizing a set of rebel lodges is too extreme a move for any GL to make.


I agree! If this sort of thing got started where would it end?


----------



## dfreybur

Warrior1256 said:


> If this sort of thing got started where would it end?



I think the answer both short and long term is on my SR ring "Ordo Ab Chao".  In the short run there would be Chaos.  Eventually there would be Order.

I'd rather achieve order by evolution than by revolution.  Neither occurs without pushing.  So I have begun to push with GL legislation attempts ...


----------



## dfreybur

Sigh.

Wouldn't it be nice if "Shots Fired!" referred to jurisdictions dropping anti-drink regulations and encouraging Table Lodge complete with those special glasses that are whacked on the table after each toast!

But that's a topic for future legislation ... ;^)


----------



## The Traveling Man

Dfreybur, if Lodges withdrew from those Jurisductions and formed a bew GL you would view them as rebels, instead of Lodges doing the right thing? It may mean that the original GL couldn't be recognized, but whose fault would that be? And if the original GL decided to make things right, they would simply merge, as GL's have done before. How long do we give a GL to "get their minds right"?. We aren't still waiting for the GOdF to change their ways. We instead recognized the GLNF, whose lineage comes from the Orient. 

In any event it'll definitely be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## dfreybur

The Traveling Man said:


> Dfreybur, if Lodges withdrew from those Jurisductions and formed a bew GL you would view them as rebels, instead of Lodges doing the right thing?



Why "instead"?  They can be both rebels and doing the right thing.  BUT ...  In this case there are TWO problems to be solved and switched obedience to the local PHA GL solves both.  Breaking with their own GL shows good faith on one of their two problems but failing to switch to PHA shows bad faith on the other of their two problems.



> It may mean that the original GL couldn't be recognized, but whose fault would that be?



Yep.  The group who broke regularity by bringing theocratic rule is at fault.  But that isn't the only problem in play.



> And if the original GL decided to make things right, they would simply merge, as GL's have done before.



If that happened I would not mind, but it still fails to address one of their two problems.



> How long do we give a GL to "get their minds right"?. We aren't still waiting for the GOdF to change their ways. We instead recognized the GLNF, whose lineage comes from the Orient



After GNLF went nuts enough that UGLE pulled recognition I attended Illinois GL.  Our delegates decided to be patient with GNLF more time to resolve their own problems.  It took them about two years.  Right now some GLs have declared neutrality on this current topic in a similar move.



> In any event it'll definitely be interesting to see how this plays out.



I picture Leonard Nimoy playing the part of Spock - "Fascinating."


----------



## MRichard

Warrior1256 said:


> I agree except that I think pulling recognition from a GL because we disagree with something that we  disagree with is not the answer.



This is more than a disagreement. This is clear cut discrimination. The provision in TN also makes it a offense to fornicate or engage in adultery. Is that going to be enforced as well?


----------



## Bloke

dfreybur said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if "Shots Fired!" referred to jurisdictions dropping anti-drink regulations and encouraging Table Lodge complete with those special glasses that are whacked on the table after each toast!
> 
> But that's a topic for future legislation ... ;^)



Maybe if the guys at Tenn drank a bit more they would not be as uptight


----------



## Warrior1256

dfreybur said:


> I'd rather achieve order by evolution than by revolution. Neither occurs without pushing. So I have begun to push with GL legislation attempts ...





dfreybur said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if "Shots Fired!" referred to jurisdictions dropping anti-drink regulations and encouraging Table Lodge complete with those special glasses that are whacked on the table after each toast!


Yes, it would!


----------



## Warrior1256

Bloke said:


> Maybe if the guys at Tenn drank a bit more they would not be as uptight


Lol....true.


----------



## acjohnson53

MWPHGLCA


----------



## Brother JC

dfreybur said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if "Shots Fired!" referred to jurisdictions dropping anti-drink regulations and encouraging Table Lodge complete with those special glasses that are whacked on the table after each toast!
> 
> But that's a topic for future legislation ... ;^)


Next time you're out west, Doug, come to  Santa Cruz. Our lodge has it's own set of cannons brought over from Scotland. Part of the Agape table setting.


----------



## Ripcord22A

MRichard said:


> engage in adultery. Is that going to be enforced as well?


 
I hope that that part is.


----------



## dfreybur

Brother JC said:


> Next time you're out west, Doug, come to  Santa Cruz. Our lodge has it's own set of cannons brought over from Scotland. Part of the Agape table setting.



My first cannon glass is from a Table Lodge at Glendale Lodge GLofCA.  Vivat!


----------



## Brother JC

Nice. Ours are a permanent fixture, unfortunately. It would be nice if we had enough to give as gifts.


----------



## Ronny D Powell

How many jurisdictions use the word "eunuch"  in their obligations? Have you ever thought you were being unjust to some who swore to uphold their obligations before God? Remember, none of us got to write our obligations. Remember some obligations have not changed significantly in generations. Also, remember to change a ritual is just not a one day affair and it is seldom done without much discussion. So, why suspend dialog with a jurisdiction or fellow human being just based on a disagreement. A disagreement I might add that has been on going for centuries. Also, explain where the lesson of tolerance has gone during all this political correctness that should not be in a lodge or grand lodge at all? May the G.A.O.T.U. watch over all.


----------



## Ripcord22A

Ronny D Powell said:


> How many jurisdictions use the word "eunuch"  in their obligations? Have you ever thought you were being unjust to some who swore to uphold their obligations before God? Remember, none of us got to write our obligations. Remember some obligations have not changed significantly in generations. Also, remember to change a ritual is just not a one day affair and it is seldom done without much discussion. So, why suspend dialog with a jurisdiction or fellow human being just based on a disagreement. A disagreement I might add that has been on going for centuries. Also, explain where the lesson of tolerance has gone during all this political correctness that should not be in a lodge or grand lodge at all? May the G.A.O.T.U. watch over all.


 
This has nothing to do with our obligations.  Ive never heard of eunuchs being in an obligation but im fairly young in Masonry.  But that is neirther here nor there. In the thousands of comments I have read on this subject, not one has said...Hey in my Jurisdictions Homosexuals are listed in the MM ob....not a single brother, or redheaded step brother(clandestine mason) has said that.  So with that said-this is a subject that, as brother @dfreybur has said, is the ideals of one reglious sects ideal of a subject being instituted in a jurisdiction.  THese jurisdictions voted in to Masonic law in theor area.  that is their right to do.  What I would like to see done is the surrounding GLs that dont agree with the decisions allow the affected brethren to join their GLs.


----------



## Classical

I'm tired of this thread, but I'll say this: It's just plain ignorant of the facts to claim that only ONE religion is not in favor of homosexual behavior. Now, you can all go back to harping about GL's of which you are not members....


----------



## Warrior1256

Classical said:


> I'm tired of this thread, but I'll say this: It's just plain ignorant of the facts to claim that only ONE religion is not in favor of homosexual behavior. Now, you can all go back to harping about GL's of which you are not members....


Agreed.


----------



## MRichard

Classical said:


> I'm tired of this thread, but I'll say this: It's just plain ignorant of the facts to claim that only ONE religion is not in favor of homosexual behavior. Now, you can all go back to harping about GL's of which you are not members....



What is ignorant to discriminate based on your religious beliefs on masonic matters. Masonry is accepting of most religions long as you have a belief in a higher power. There is a reason why you should not discuss religions and politics in the lodge. And yet here we are.


----------



## MRichard

Classical said:


> I'm tired of this thread, but I'll say this: It's just plain ignorant of the facts to claim that only ONE religion is not in favor of homosexual behavior. Now, you can all go back to harping about GL's of which you are not members....



Are you a master mason yet?


----------



## Classical

MRichard said:


> Are you a master mason yet?



My FC proficiency is scheduled for next week!!!


----------



## MRichard

Classical said:


> My FC proficiency is scheduled for next week!!!



Good luck and try to stay away from controversial threads like this.


----------



## Classical

MRichard said:


> Good luck and try to stay away from controversial threads like this.



Aye, aye brother! Thanks!!


----------



## Glen Cook

MRichard said:


> What is ignorant to discriminate based on your religious beliefs on masonic matters. Masonry is accepting of most religions long as you have a belief in a higher power. There is a reason why you should not discuss religions and politics in the lodge. And yet here we are.


But , we do discriminate  and have for centuries.  We have GLs which are Christian. 

 As you know, Texas requires on it's petition for the degrees a belief in the divine  authenticity of the volume of sacred law. http://grandlodgeoftexas.org/assets/uploads/2015/10/26.pdf


Oklahoma requires a belief in the one true and  living God , http://www.gloklahoma.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/petition2011.pdf

Florida asks if you believe in the one ever living and true God.  http://grandlodgefl.com/docs/GLF_Forms/GL 601 Petition for the Degrees.pdf

For some 60 years, only ending in 1984, Latter-day Saints were forbidden in GL of Utah.  The first openly LDS GM didn't serve until 2008.  

However we may justify the  condemnation of TN and GA, surely it can't be on the basis that we don't discriminate.


----------



## Companion Joe

What people don't know about this whole deal would fill a book.
All the knee jerk reactions would fill volumes.


----------



## MRichard

Glen Cook said:


> But , we do discriminate  and have for centuries.  We have GLs which are Christian.
> 
> As you know, Texas requires on it's petition for the degrees a belief in the divine  authenticity of the volume of sacred law. http://grandlodgeoftexas.org/assets/uploads/2015/10/26.pdf
> 
> 
> Oklahoma requires a belief in the one true and  living God , http://www.gloklahoma.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/petition2011.pdf
> 
> Florida asks if you believe in the one ever living and true God.  http://grandlodgefl.com/docs/GLF_Forms/GL 601 Petition for the Degrees.pdf
> 
> For some 60 years, only ending in 1984, Latter-day Saints were forbidden in GL of Utah.  The first openly LDS GM didn't serve until 2008.
> 
> However we may justify the  condemnation of TN and GA, surely it can't be on the basis that we don't discriminate.



That's exactly the problem. It's been getting worse and worse. Is that discrimination in line with the tenets of Freemasonry? I think not.


----------



## MRichard

Companion Joe said:


> What people don't know about this whole deal would fill a book.
> All the knee jerk reactions would fill volumes.



We are listening. Enlighten us.


----------



## Brother JC

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Ive never heard of eunuchs being in an obligation...


They're in the NM one, but gays aren't...


----------



## coachn

Brother JC said:


> They're in the NM one, but gays aren't...


Wait!  NM has something somewhere about Eunuchs?


----------



## Companion Joe

MRichard said:


> We are listening. Enlighten us.



Those whose business it is know the details, so I'll respectfully decline other than to clear up one important detail: Some, not all, seem to think in Tennessee's case, this was an edict issued by last year's GM; it was not. The issue at hand has been in the code for about 30 years. It was put there, and recently kept there, by the voting members of the state, not one person.

The real takeaway from all this is what I tell my students every day: Don't put your whole life on Facebook because no good will come of it; keep your personal business personal. 
When someone asks me, "Did you see on Facebook...." "NO." "But you did't let me finish." "It doesn't matter what you were going to say, because whatever it was, I didn't see it on Facebook." I don't care who you are or what the topic is, keep your private business to yourself. If someone asks you about it, say, "I'm sorry, that's really none of your business."


----------



## MasterBulldawg

MRichard said:


> That's exactly the problem. It's been getting worse and worse. Is that discrimination in line with the tenets of Freemasonry? I think not.


Do you think any man that meets the minimum qualifications shouldn't be allowed to join a lodge?

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Bloke

Companion Joe said:


> The real takeaway from all this is what I tell my students every day: Don't put your whole life on Facebook because no good will come of it; keep your personal business personal.
> "



I personally  subscribe to the above: hence I'm "bloke" here...... but the reality is some folk live their life openly on social media and without fear. They show their true selves without censorship or inhibtion. I admire them for a boldness and transparency and an honest frankness I'm was not raised to have nor feel comfortable personally expressing...


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> But , we do discriminate and have for centuries. We have GLs which are Christian.


Agreed, we also do not allow females to join.


Glen Cook said:


> However we may justify the condemnation of TN and GA, surely it can't be on the basis that we don't discriminate.





Companion Joe said:


> Some, not all, seem to think in Tennessee's case, this was an edict issued by last year's GM; it was not. The issue at hand has been in the code for about 30 years. It was put there, and recently kept there, by the voting members of the state, not one person.


Good points.
Bottom line....any private organization that sets criteria for membership "discriminates" against someone.


----------



## Ripcord22A

Companion Joe said:


> this was an edict issued by last year's GM; it was not. The issue at hand has been in the code for about 30 years. It was put there, and recently kept there, by the voting members of the state, not one person."


 
But the Gag order was issued by last years GM correct?  How is telling your Masons that they cannot discuss a topic that directly affect the members masonic?  Also since its been in the code for so long how did those 2 brothers not only make it in but make it through the chairs in one of their cases?  I dont know about TN but in OR and NM we are obligated to Keep the S of a BMM as my own. with only two exceptions.  and being a homo aint one of those exceptions.  and those exceptions are left up to me.  Bottom line for me is that I may not agree with a man being gay, but i also dont agree with a man voting for Bernie Sanders either, or rooting for the Redskins that doesnt mean that they arent good upright men that i would be glad to call brother.


----------



## Ripcord22A

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> but i also dont agree with a man voting for Bernie Sanders


Actually that just might be grounds for a black cube....lol


----------



## goomba

MasterBulldawg said:


> Do you think any man that meets the minimum qualifications shouldn't be allowed to join a lodge?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



What are the difference between the minimum qualifications, qualifications, and preferred qualifications?


----------



## dfreybur

Classical said:


> It's just plain ignorant of the facts to claim that only ONE religion is not in favor of homosexual behavior.



I take it you just offered to produce citations from scriptures outside of the JCI family.  I've read scriptures from Hindu, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and so on down a considerable list and no such condemnation appears in any of them.  I keep reading scripture and keep not finding references.  The largest population non-JCI religion whose scripture I have not yet read is Shinto.  I finally found one of their main books in English translation so within a year I will have added Shinto to my list.

It is clear that the vast majority of religions across history have made no reference to the topic and as such can not be said to dictate a policy for or against.  Which really does mean the topic is only mentioned in the scripture of one family of religions.


----------



## goomba

Classical said:


> I'm tired of this thread, but I'll say this: It's just plain ignorant of the facts to claim that only ONE religion is not in favor of homosexual behavior. Now, you can all go back to harping about GL's of which you are not members....



What is not ignorant is to claim that the ONE main religion of an area is the ONE main religion not causing the problem in the area.

Edit:  

Or in my belief the misunderstanding of that ONE religion.  As I profess a belief in the Christian religion and fully accept and support the homosexual lifestyle.


----------



## MRichard

Companion Joe said:


> Those whose business it is know the details, so I'll respectfully decline other than to clear up one important detail: Some, not all, seem to think in Tennessee's case, this was an edict issued by last year's GM; it was not. The issue at hand has been in the code for about 30 years. It was put there, and recently kept there, by the voting members of the state, not one person.
> 
> The real takeaway from all this is what I tell my students every day: Don't put your whole life on Facebook because no good will come of it; keep your personal business personal.
> When someone asks me, "Did you see on Facebook...." "NO." "But you did't let me finish." "It doesn't matter what you were going to say, because whatever it was, I didn't see it on Facebook." I don't care who you are or what the topic is, keep your private business to yourself. If someone asks you about it, say, "I'm sorry, that's really none



Let's see. The rumors are that it was a gay couple that was married and someone put the pictures of the ceremony on Facebook. You brought it up so why do that when you are not willing to discuss what happened.


----------



## MRichard

MasterBulldawg said:


> Do you think any man that meets the minimum qualifications shouldn't be allowed to join a lodge?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



Your question confuses me. Do you mean should instead?


----------



## Bloke

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> ....I dont know about TN but in OR and NM we are obligated to Keep the S of a BMM as my own. with only two exceptions.  and being a homo aint one of those exceptions.  and those exceptions are left up to me.  Bottom line for me is that I may not agree with a man being gay, but i also dont agree with a man voting for Bernie Sanders either, or rooting for the Redskins that doesnt mean that they arent good upright men that i would be glad to call brother.



LOL, very politically incorrect language but love the message my brother  i 100% agree


----------



## Companion Joe

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> But the Gag order was issued by last years GM correct?  How is telling your Masons that they *cannot discuss a topic* that directly affect the members masonic?  Also since its been in the code for so long how did those 2 brothers not only make it in but make it through the chairs in one of their cases?  I dont know about TN but in OR and NM we are obligated to Keep the S of a BMM as my own. with only two exceptions.  and being a homo aint one of those exceptions.  and those exceptions are left up to me.  Bottom line for me is that I may not agree with a man being gay, but i also dont agree with a man voting for Bernie Sanders either, or rooting for the Redskins that doesnt mean that they arent good upright men that i would be glad to call brother.



There is part of the problem. People take a grain of truth and turn it into a massive pile of misinformation. The "gag order" as it is described wasn't about keeping members from discussing Masonic issues. What was said was no one should make a comment publicly, specifically to the media. All it would take is for one TV reporter with a camera to stop a random old man wearing a S&C ring - never mind the fact that he hadn't sat in lodge since 1974 - to ask him the "official position" on a matter. A perfect example is one particular news story I saw interviewed a man and had him talking at length about the issue. They failed to mention/ignored the fact that he had demitted some time ago and is actually no longer a member in good standing.

A perfect illustration of this is how many people take one line from Albert Pike and proclaim it to be "official" in terms of Masonic doctrine? It's all too easy - especially in today's world of social media and gotcha journalism - to take things out of context and make them the official stance of anything.


----------



## Mel Knight

To be honest I think it's an unfortunate situation for everyone, including brothers that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

There's a situation that happen with 1-2 lodges if I'm not mistaken but it's taken out on a whole entire state, it's unfair for everyone.


----------



## MasterBulldawg

goomba said:


> What are the difference between the minimum qualifications, qualifications, and preferred qualifications?


 
Let say you have 3 guys, all good men, no record. ..all the but for 1 thing.  1 wants to join for business contacts,  1 wants to join  for self improvement  and 1 wants to join to see all the fuss is about.  Which one do you want ?

Or lets say you interview guy , good guy, no record etc. ..but something seems off your gut tells you that this guy is not a good fit for masonry  ....what do you do?


----------



## MasterBulldawg

MRichard said:


> Your question confuses me. Do you mean should instead?


 Yes sorry  the speak to text miss up.


----------



## MRichard

MasterBulldawg said:


> Let say you have 3 guys, all good men, no record. ..all the but for 1 thing.  1 wants to join for business contacts,  1 wants to join  for self improvement  and 1 wants to join to see all the fuss is about.  Which one do you want ?
> 
> Or lets say you interview guy , good guy, no record etc. ..but something seems off your gut tells you that this guy is not a good fit for masonry  ....what do you do?



If they are all good men, then what's the problem? Our motto is taking good men and making them better.


----------



## MasterBulldawg

MRichard said:


> If they are all good men, then what's the problem? Our motto is taking good men and making them better.




If you don't know then you are being argumentative  or you just don't get it.


----------



## MRichard

MasterBulldawg said:


> If you don't know then you are being argumentative  or you just don't get it.



The same could be said of you.


----------



## Ripcord22A

Companion Joe said:


> There is part of the problem. People take a grain of truth and turn it into a massive pile of misinformation. The "gag order" as it is described wasn't about keeping members from discussing Masonic issues. What was said was no one should make a comment publicly, specifically to the media. All it would take is for one TV reporter with a camera to stop a random old man wearing a S&C ring - never mind the fact that he hadn't sat in lodge since 1974 - to ask him the "official position" on a matter. A perfect example is one particular news story I saw interviewed a man and had him talking at length about the issue. They failed to mention/ignored the fact that he had demitted some time ago and is actually no longer a member in good standing.
> 
> A perfect illustration of this is how many people take one line from Albert Pike and proclaim it to be "official" in terms of Masonic doctrine? It's all too easy - especially in today's world of social media and gotcha journalism - to take things out of context and make them the official stance of anything.


Ok that makes more sense.  I was under the impression that you all were told there could be no discussion on the topic till GL.  I stand corrected!  Thanks for setting me straight! 

What is your personal opinion on the matter?

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MasterBulldawg

MRichard said:


> The same could be said of you.


Maybe, maybe not. But if you try to tell me that every good man is a good fit for masonry then I'll throw down the BS card. Every mason has the duty to guard their lodge and freemasonry against those who they think are not a good fit for the lodge or freemasonry. You shouldn't have to vote for someone just because you can't find a reason not but they should  have something about them makes you want to vote for them. Quality not quantity should be what we look for in members. You the secret to Freemasonry isn't just making good men better. It goes back to what you're parents said. You're judged by the company you keep.  By having Brothers who can help you when struggle and need help, encouragement and even a kick in the butt when you need it to help make yourself better is the real secret.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## goomba

MasterBulldawg said:


> Let say you have 3 guys, all good men, no record. ..all the but for 1 thing.  1 wants to join for business contacts,  1 wants to join  for self improvement  and 1 wants to join to see all the fuss is about.  Which one do you want ?
> 
> Or lets say you interview guy , good guy, no record etc. ..but something seems off your gut tells you that this guy is not a good fit for masonry  ....what do you do?



Just because they do or do not have a record doesn't make them good men.  There are people with clean records who are terrible people.  Also one of the best men I have ever known got into trouble with he was 18.  Now close to 40 he has not been in anymore trouble and is the most honorable Mason I know.

I see my vote in this way.  Every man who petitions in a no vote until they are shown to be a yes vote.  This is just me personally as not all men should be made a Mason.  With that being said I can't vote no on a man just because I don't like him.  If it's just because I as a person do not like him as a person I see that as a petty reason for me to vote no.

I will say my gut feeling is this for scenario one:  business guy stays a no without additional information.  The other two I'm assuming everything is great and they are both yes.

In your second scenario being that my gut tells me know it wouldn't make sense for me to say yes.  However, my gut feeling would be based of observable facts and circumstances so it would be my responsibility to express this.   

Now for what I see as the truth in these scenarios there is not enough information provided in brief discussion board scenarios to make a judgment of a mans life to accurately say how I would vote.  Every person has a bad moment and if you look at each of us for a short enough glimpse of time each of us would look horrible.  May be the business name is under the impression that Masonry is for business contacts, as is a common misconception.

Truth be told all there that is required for men to join our fraternity is minimum qualifications.  The issue I see with this thread is men are adding qualifications to join and that is where problems come from.  Each lodge let me say that again, each lodge should decide its membership NOT the grand lodge outside of minimum qualifications.  Something the SW says when the lodge is opened in a number of areas something about harmony.

With that being said if individual lodges are violating the minimum qualifications then the grand lodge should address the issue.

Being a man, having a good reputation, believing in a supreme being, and well there is no and, this is the qualification to becoming a Mason.  This standard has been around much longer than I have been alive.  That is the standard, now I know there are GL's that have additional requirements in other parts of the world.  But that is the exception to the rule and not the rule.  When we start changing Masonry when does it become something other than Masonry?

Before someone says but the rule has been on the books for 30 years, is Masonry only 30 years old?  No it is older than that.

I am a Christian, as are many others in the fraternity, I read the Holy Bible and do not see homosexuality as a sin period.  I know others do.  But as a Christian I know where these rules came from and being a Christian from the south (Alabama) I know why.  I know the area is mostly evangelical Christian of some sort, and there is nothing wrong with that.  However, what is wrong is when Masons began placing their religious again THEIR religious beliefs/requirements on an entire fraternity.  Again I know other GL's in other parts of the world so lets not get into that here as that goes beyond this discussion.  My Christian beliefs are mine not yours (whoever is reading this) I should not force my beliefs on my fraternity.  If I cannot separate the two if my convictions are so strong that I cannot accept men of other faith systems, even men of other faith systems within my faith, then I have stepped outside of what Masonry is and I need to separate myself from Masonry.

This is all my opinion and nothing else.


----------



## goomba

MasterBulldog I want you to know none of my replies are directed at you personally.  Your post were just good at moving a conversation over.  I agree not all "good" men should be Masons.

To everyone else sorry about the long post and typos.


----------



## The Traveling Man

It would seem discriminatory to have a "Are you a homosexual?" or "Are you currently unmarried but living with your significant other?" on a petition, BUT it may be necessary in those Jurisdictions that have such rules. The reason being that in most Jurisdictions, if not all, members aren't given a copy of their Constitution until they receive their 3rd degree. So why Initiate, Pass and Raise a Brother just to suspend or expel him later? If he knew from the beginning that it would not be allowed then he could save the time and just not petition.


----------



## Warrior1256

Companion Joe said:


> A perfect illustration of this is how many people take one line from Albert Pike and proclaim it to be "official" in terms of Masonic doctrine? It's all too easy - especially in today's world of social media and gotcha journalism - to take things out of context and make them the official stance of anything.





Mel Knight said:


> There's a situation that happen with 1-2 lodges if I'm not mistaken but it's taken out on a whole entire state, it's unfair for everyone.





The Traveling Man said:


> It would seem discriminatory to have a "Are you a homosexual?" or "Are you currently unmarried but living with your significant other?" on a petition, BUT it may be necessary in those Jurisdictions that have such rules. The reason being that in most Jurisdictions, if not all, members aren't given a copy of their Constitution until they receive their 3rd degree. So why Initiate, Pass and Raise a Brother just to suspend or expel him later? If he knew from the beginning that it would not be allowed then he could save the time and just not petition.


All very good points to consider!


----------

