# Georgia pondering



## dfreybur (Nov 25, 2015)

Something I have noticed about the recent ban on gays by Georgia.  Lots of opinions one way or another but none have proposed that any jurisdiction pull recognition.

I noticed complaints about intolerance in either direction but unless I missed efforts to pull recognition I only see refusal to accept that only goes in one direction.

Mostly it's their jurisdiction so they get to make their own rules, followed by approval or disapproval.  More disapproval than approval.

Have I missed any call to pull recognition?  When Florida banned a specific list of religions in an edict there was at least one state that had already announced they would pull recognition if the edict got approved.  In this case the edict was approved by vote at annual communication and I have not seen any recommendations to pull recognition.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 25, 2015)

I've seen no formal proposals, but many suggestions on the Net that this occur. My typical response has been to query why the same action isn't taken with Christian only GLs. I get two responses: that's historical so that's okay; we should do that too. Yet, I've not heard anyone do so. Historically, we've not cared if a GL was more limiting in its standards. Thus, the exclusion of Latter-day Saints for a period ending in 1984 by the GL of UT without action; GLs which require a belief in the immortality of the soul and the revealed word of God; Christian GLs; prohibition of felons...

The action by GL GA violates none of the recognition standards of either CGMNA or the Home GLs. If we go down this path of making sure each GL meets our own standard of qualification for the fraternity, the recognition portion of our Fraternity (an area with which I deal) could become even more fraught than it is now. 

There are those who remember the DC-NY recognition issue over Lebanon. Few on this list saw the impact on brethren when UGLE suspended recognition of GLNF. It is the brethren who suffer.


----------



## Zack (Nov 25, 2015)

[QUOTE="dfreybur, post: 152237, member: 8289
Have I missed any call to pull recognition?  When Florida banned a specific list of religions in an edict there was at least one state that had already announced they would pull recognition if the edict got approved.  In this case the edict was approved by vote at annual communication and I have not seen any recommendations to pull recognition.[/QUOTE]

Which state was that?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 25, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> The action by GL GA violates none of the recognition standards of either CGMNA or the Home GLs. If we go down this path of making sure each GL meets our own standard of qualification for the fraternity, the recognition portion of our Fraternity (an area with which I deal) could become even more fraught than it is now.


I really hadn't looked at it this way before but you're right. We may disapprove of a GLs actions but we have no right to try to inflict our standards on others. If the actions do not violate Masonic law so be it.


----------



## GrandJojo (Nov 26, 2015)

Does Freedom of speech in the US allow for hate speech, discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, religion? What about incitement to violence?  Isn't there a legal limit on things you can't say or write? If there is, recognition could easily be pulled on this basis alone - we don't want to deal with institutionalized discrimination.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 26, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Something I have noticed about the recent ban on gays by Georgia.  Lots of opinions one way or another but none have proposed that any jurisdiction pull recognition..



Grand Lodges are sovereign entities and have the right to self regulate within the accepted landmarks. In banning gay men, what landmark have they clearly broken ? And, if you want to change something, you do it by talking to folk, not by doing anything to stop the conversation....

Your comment is an interesting one.... did anyone pull recognition for failure to recognized "regular" prince hall jurisdiction back in the 1980's-2010 ? I would think not.

Unless a landmark was broken, unless something illegal happened.. than I can't see how you would pull recognition. It's a serious thing...

Mind you, here is another interesting question - can Georgian Lodges refuse to admit openly gay men from other jurisdictions in amity ? They may well be able, but if a man was actually *living* in Georgia but a member of another jurisdiction, where would that leave him ? Would his GL write to Georgia asking for admittance on behalf of their member ?


----------



## Bloke (Nov 26, 2015)

GrandJojo said:


> Does Freedom of speech in the US allow for hate speech, discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, religion? What about incitement to violence?  Isn't there a legal limit on things you can't say or write? If there is, recognition could easily be pulled on this basis alone - we don't want to deal with institutionalized discrimination.



Nice words, but I could throw then back in you in relation to admitting females.... there is nothing in the landmarks about sexuality, only the subjective "good and moral men" etc.. (and the "quote" is not a "quote " from a text, just with me with my finders in the air doing the quote sign  )


----------



## GrandJojo (Nov 26, 2015)

I agree, I've written here before that we are not immune to some of lawsuit precisely because we don't allow women, or atheists for that matter. I've raised these concerns to my own Grand Lodge. Some on this board have tried to reassure me by saying fraternities can choose its members based on gender and that was OK acording to law. 

At least Women have the Eastern Star, or Women Masonry, or Co-Masonry.  But are gay men not considered men? Are they not moral persons? Are they supposed to go to women Masonry - or co-Masonry? Or are gay men supposed to create their own Grand Lodge - just like Prince Hall did, for similar reasons?

What is the "Moral Law"? When we're in front of a judge - are we going to claim that we did it, because of the "Moral Law"?


----------



## Bloke (Nov 26, 2015)

I understand there is a precedent in law in the states that someone who joins a fraternity is bound by the fraternities rules even if they are not the same with other community standards.. there is an American paper on that looking at cases .. but it is old... 

The law aside, I agree.... it's wrong.. for me its simple, gay men have been known in the craft for centuries... I have some in my lodges and one in particularly has made a huge contribution to our GL. I would fight for those brothers right to stay brothers..

And you are 100% right on "moral law".... but the judge will not look at that but president and intent.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 26, 2015)

Found it
http://www.msana.com/downloads/MasonicQuestionsAnsweredbytheCourts.pdf

" Revised March 1983"

It's older than I thought...


----------



## GrandJojo (Nov 26, 2015)

Thank you for this valuable document. 
Many of the cases in there are often 100 years old or older. I wonder if many of these still hold water in terms of precedence, and new laws - such as this:

_ The general rule is set forth in 4 Am. fur. 462 ( a legal encyclopedia) as follows: "Membership in a voluntary association is a privilege which may be accorded or withheld, and not a right which can be gained independently and then enforced. The courts cannot compel the admission of a member into such an association, and *if his application is refused, he is entirely without legal remedy, no matter how arbitrary or unjust may be his exclusion."*_​


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 26, 2015)

GrandJojo said:


> Does Freedom of speech in the US allow for hate speech, discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, religion? What about incitement to violence?  Isn't there a legal limit on things you can't say or write? If there is, recognition could easily be pulled on this basis alone - we don't want to deal with institutionalized discrimination.


Withdrawal of recognition does not require a basis in the civil law.  

The fraternity already discriminates on the basis of gender, religious belief and race.  

Why shouldn't we  withdraw recognition of GLs based on exclusion of non-Christians?  Why not withdraw recognition because of Christian (and even Trinitarian Christian) side orders?).


----------



## GrandJojo (Nov 26, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Withdrawal of recognition does not require a basis in the civil law.



Absolutely. But the GNLF did not loose recognition because of Regularity issues either. We can choose to act. Some Grand Lodges have already used this civil law argument to withdraw recognition from a US State (Alabama) - on the race issue. 



Glen Cook said:


> The fraternity already discriminates on the basis of gender, religious belief and race.



When it comes to gender - I find comfort in the fact that women have options. We, as men, are also not allowed to join Feminine Grand Lodges.
In terms of religious belief or race - at least in my Grand Lodge, there is no such discrimination.



Glen Cook said:


> Why shouldn't we withdraw recognition of GLs based on exclusion of non-Christians? Why not withdraw recognition because of Christian (and even Trinitarian Christian) side orders?).



Good question indeed!


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 26, 2015)

GrandJojo said:


> Absolutely. But the GNLF did not loose recognition because of Regularity issues either. We can choose to act. Some Grand Lodges have already used this civil law argument to withdraw recognition from a US State (Alabama) - on the race issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If the civil law does not apply, then there is no need to address that that issue.

But the proposal has been to withdraw recognition without reference to the civil law  because the Grand Lodge also discriminates on the basis of  sexual conduct.  Injecting a discussion of the  civil law is a red herring

Which Grand Lodge does not recognize Grand Lodge of Alabama currently?

Your Grand Lodge admits those who do not express a belief in deity?

Further, Scandinavian Grand Lodges discriminate on the basis of religion. Should we not withdraw  recognition of them?   Should My GL withdraw recognition of your Grand Lodge because your Grand Lodge recognizes Grand Lodges which discriminate on the basis of recognition?

But you will recognize that other Grand Lodges discriminate on the basis of race. Should we not withdraw recognition of them?


----------



## GrandJojo (Nov 26, 2015)

Again, very good questions.

Maybe I'm overeacting - but I believe Freemasonry should obey the civil law first, not just the "moral one". Recognition does not have to be pulled  only if Landmarks are broken.

No, of course we do not admit atheists. We're discriminating on lack of religious beliefs - and this is also something we can be hit on in terms of discrimination and lawsuits. I prefer a deistic approach to Freemasonry myself for multiple reasons, but I am not sure this is something we'll be able to defend forever. But I'll defend this position best I can.

I was wrong on Alabama. It's one of the southern states (could be Arkansas) which at least one European country does not recognize. I won't tell which one as that would reveal information I am not at liberty to disclose. 

On the topic of Scandinavian Grand Lodges - I'm not sure I'll ever go visit them. This is as far as my protest will go - that, and ranting on this board.

Yes, I do think we should consider withdrawing recognition of Grand Lodges that discriminate on the basis of Race - at the very least, those Grand Lodges that discriminate publicly.  Are there any that actually do this?


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 26, 2015)

GrandJojo said:


> Again, very good questions.
> 
> Maybe I'm overeacting - but I believe Freemasonry should obey the civil law first, not just the "moral one". Recognition does not have to be pulled  only if Landmarks are broken.
> 
> ...


There is no commonly accepted list of landmarks.

If we don't admit atheists, we discriminate on the basis of religion.

The list of recognized  recognized Grand Lodge is publicly available. There is nothing private there. I do not immediately see a European Grand Lodge not in Amity with Arkansas, but it is a very wide spreadsheet. The regular Grand Lodge Belgium is in Amity with AR on that list


----------



## GrandJojo (Nov 26, 2015)

It's not Arkansas either.

Some European Grand Lodges do not list countries they recognize or don't recognize in the List of Grand Lodges/Lodges book, nor do they on their websites.

Yes - The Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium is in amity with all Southern Grand Lodges as far as I know.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 26, 2015)

GrandJojo said:


> It's not Arkansas either.
> 
> Some European Grand Lodges do not list countries they recognize or don't recognize in the List of Grand Lodges/Lodges book, nor do they on their websites.
> 
> Yes - The Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium is in amity with all Southern Grand Lodges as far as I know.


I don't use the Pantagraph book, but the MSANA list. Those involved in recognition typically have access to recognition lists.


----------



## goomba (Nov 26, 2015)

As a Mason whose mother jurisdiction is Alabama, I support the notion of grand lodges withdrawing fraternal relations because of the Prince Hall issue.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 26, 2015)

goomba said:


> As a Mason whose mother jurisdiction is Alabama, I support the notion of grand lodges withdrawing fraternal relations because of the Prince Hall issue.


What about GLs that only allow Christians?

Will you be making such a motion at GL?


----------



## goomba (Nov 26, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> What about GLs that only allow Christians?
> 
> Will you be making such a motion at GL?



No I will not be making such a motion.  But I would vote for it.

Regarding the GL's which only allow for Christian members, while I disagree with it personally, I must agree I cannot find fault today.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 26, 2015)

Bloke said:


> Grand Lodges are sovereign entities and have the right to self regulate within the accepted landmarks. I





Bloke said:


> Unless a landmark was broken, unless something illegal happened.. than I can't see how you would pull recognition. It's a serious thing...





Glen Cook said:


> The fraternity already discriminates on the basis of gender, religious belief and race.
> 
> Why shouldn't we withdraw recognition of GLs based on exclusion of non-Christians? Why not withdraw recognition because of Christian (and even Trinitarian Christian) side orders?).


All excellent points. Bottom line....if we get into pulling recognition from GLs over things that "offend" us where will it end.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 26, 2015)

Warrior1256 said:


> All excellent points. Bottom line....if we get into pulling recognition from GLs over things that "offend" us where will it end.


There ya go.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 26, 2015)

goomba said:


> Regarding the GL's which only allow for Christian members, while I disagree with it personally, I must agree I cannot find fault today.


Very true.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 26, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> If we don't admit atheists, we discriminate on the basis of religion.



Not quite right Brother. If we don't admit atheists, we discriminate on the basis of the belief on a Higher Power, commonly called God or the GAOTU.  That is not discrimination on the basis of religion (but also realize there are regular jurisdictions that do - it always jars when I read "Bible" in a craft ritual - here it is always "VSL".

I guess the bigger question is should we try to regulate the goings on in the activities of other sovereign lodges ? Would that be what we are trying to achieve in pulling recognition ? Certainly there is precedent for that - the most notable being the schim between the modern and ancients which raged for decades...

I think my GL is faitly functional, but despite that, we've got our problems. I am probably more interested in reforming my own house than that of my masonic neighbours in other jurisdictions,,,


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 26, 2015)

Bloke said:


> I guess the bigger question is should we try to regulate the goings on in the activities of other sovereign lodges ? Would that be what we are trying to achieve in pulling recognition ?





Bloke said:


> I am probably more interested in reforming my own house than that of my masonic neighbours in other jurisdictions,,,


Totally Agree.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 26, 2015)

Bloke said:


> Not quite right Brother. If we don't admit atheists, we discriminate on the basis of the belief on a Higher Power, commonly called God or the GAOTU.  That is not discrimination on the basis of religion (but also realize there are regular jurisdictions that do - it always jars when I read "Bible" in a craft ritual - here it is always "VSL".
> 
> I guess the bigger question is should we try to regulate the goings on in the activities of other sovereign lodges ? Would that be what we are trying to achieve in pulling recognition ? Certainly there is precedent for that - the most notable being the schim between the modern and ancients which raged for decades...
> 
> I think my GL is faitly functional, but despite that, we've got our problems. I am probably more interested in reforming my own house than that of my masonic neighbours in other jurisdictions,,,



I will accept your opinion  that rejection of atheists is not religious discrimination in your country.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 26, 2015)

Thanks. My point was not all people who are not atheists actually have an organized religion they belong to or which they identify with. We don't discrimate based on membership of a religion, we discriminate according to having a belief or no believe in a supreme being...


----------



## Emjaysmash (Nov 27, 2015)

Bloke said:


> Thanks. My point was not all people who are not atheists actually have an organized religion they belong to or which they identify with. We don't discrimate based on membership of a religion, we discriminate according to having a belief or no believe in a supreme being...



For the sake of argument here (and as I see it being used in the U.S.), Discrimination based upon religious belief also applies to the persons belief of religion (any theistic or atheistic belief in general).


----------



## Bloke (Nov 27, 2015)

Thanks MJ. I was not thinking of how the courts would view it but how we view it.


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 28, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> I've seen no formal proposals, but many suggestions on the Net that this occur.



Thanks Brother Glen.  This further increases my high opinion of the members of this board.



> My typical response has been to query why the same action isn't taken with Christian only GLs. I get two responses: that's historical so that's okay; we should do that too.



Right.  There's no way I would submit such legislation.  If it were to come up at a GL communication I attend and have a vote, I would be tempted to vote to pull recognition but probably would vote against pulling recognition.  For the same reason I asked the question here.  Their jurisdiction their rules.



Bloke said:


> Grand Lodges are sovereign entities and have the right to self regulate within the accepted landmarks. In banning gay men, what landmark have they clearly broken ?



Discussion of partisan politics in tiled meetings.  Gay marriage is a political hot button in the United States at the moment so discussion of it is a partisan political discussion.  This one is quite direct as it is this year's political hot button.

Also discussion of sectarian religion in tiled meetings.  Forbidding gay activity comes from one specific section of one specific book of one specific religion and is only upheld by a limited subset of the lists of sects of that one religion.  This one is less direct as it is the majority religion in that jurisdiction and in very many other jurisdictions.

It is clear that GLofGA broke landmarks in this process.  There seem to be landmarks that define who we let in and there are landmarks that define how we behave among ourselves.  Clearly there are priorities among our landmarks as shown by the different reactions to Florida banning a specific list of religions versus Florida banning behavior that is only mentioned in one specific religion.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 28, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Thanks Brother Glen.  This further increases my high opinion of the members of this board.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ummmm. You said the landmarks wooooord.  I'm gonna tell. 

What landmark do you feel it violated?


----------



## Zack (Nov 28, 2015)

[QUOTE="dfreybur, post: 152237, member: 8289

Have I missed any call to pull recognition?  When Florida banned a specific list of religions in an edict there was at least one state that had already announced they would pull recognition if the edict got approved.  In this case the edict was approved by vote at annual communication and I have not seen any recommendations to pull recognition.[/QUOTE]

I ask again, what state?


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 29, 2015)

Zack said:


> I ask again, what state?



The name of the state in question is in the subject line of the thread.  Georgia.



Glen Cook said:


> What landmark do you feel it violated?



1) Bringing partisan political discussion into tiled meetings.  The topic of gay activity is current political news in the United States and it forms a partisan division.  Bringing the topic up at all has created strife among the brothers.

2) Bringing sectarian religious discussion into tiled meetings.  The topic of gay activity appears in one chapter of one volume of one book of writings sacred to one family of religions, and it is not accepted as authoritative by all religions in that family nor by all sects of the largest population religion in the family.   This is dictatorship of the majority who knowingly impose the new rule on members of other faiths.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 29, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> The name of the state in question is in the subject line of the thread.  Georgia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is where we disagree. The GL had for some years forbidden  fornication, we are informed. This was a clarification to indicate that homosexual acts were included.

Our obligations also prohibit other sexual activity. Mere discussion  of our codes without reference to a religious proscription does not, for me, constitute a violation of any supposed landmark.

 Additionally, as we have Grand Lodges who allow Christians only, and a Grand Lodge who has been allowed to prohibit other faiths, such as Latter-day Saints, clearly the discussion of such matters is allowed.


----------



## Zack (Nov 29, 2015)

Zack said:


> [QUOTE="dfreybur, post: 152237, member: 8289
> 
> When Florida banned a specific list of religions in an edict there was at least one state that had already announced they would pull recognition if the edict got approved. .


 
My question is....what state announced they would pull recognition of FL?


----------



## drw72 (Nov 29, 2015)

Don't know what state Zack but from what I found Florida's GM passed the edict in Nov. 2012 and it was overturned in May 2013.


----------



## coachn (Nov 29, 2015)

drw72 said:


> Don't know what state Zack but from what I found Florida's GM passed the edict in Nov. 2012 and it was overturned in May 2013.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 29, 2015)

coachn said:


> View attachment 4884
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4883


Well, yes they are empty.  Otherwise, they might be filled by the wrong sort. 

When I read the abandoned edict, I wondered if it might apply to me as a Latter-day Saint (Mormon).


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 30, 2015)

Zack said:


> My question is....what state announced they would pull recognition of FL?



Indiana had passed legislation that if Florida upheld the edict banning a specific list of religions, recognition would be pulled.  Indiana's GL communication is earlier in the year than Florida's.

I was circulating legislation for signatures in California and Illinois at the time as I am PM in those jurisdictions able to propose legislation.  I withdrew them when the edict was rejected.


----------

