The Grand Lodge of Kentucky is the latest battle ground in the fight to bring Freemasonry into the 21st century, where brothers are calling other brothers “a flaming faggot” in their sexual orientation.
From the Lexington Herald-Leader in the state of Kentucky, the W. Master of Winchester Masonic lodge was asked to resign because of his recent coming out as being gay. His admission was enough to cause some distraught brothers to walk out on the W. Master because of their distress.
Refusing the insistence of his resignation, Frankfort lodge drafted a petition to change the state’s fraternal constitution to prohibit openly Gay men from being Masons, the proposed change saying:
“Freemasonry is pro-family and recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman. Any other relationship is a violation of the moral law and therefore unmasonic conduct. Homosexual relationships, openly professed and practiced, are a violation of the moral law and therefore unmasonic conduct. No openly homosexual Freemason shall be allowed to retain membership in this grand jurisdiction.”
Taken at the annual meeting of the Kentucky Grand Lodge, the constitutional change was rejected, but not without rumblings that there would be more on this in the future.
You can read the whole story on the Herald-Leader.
The issues does open the door to a wider consideration, that as roughly 15% of the U.S. population is gay (see the Gallup Poll data and the Demographics of sexual orientation from Wikipedia statistics) it goes without saying that so too then would the Lodge have a similar percentage of gay members. And, as such, those brothers may or may not be out in the open, given the reaction of those around them. is it right then to discriminate against them?
In the article, it mentions that following the vote there was a degree of grumbling that lead some observers to say that the issue would manifest again in the future to try and amend the constitution to encompass some meaning of family values so as to prohibit gay men from becoming member, which would likely mean some test administered at petition to determine orientation.
All of this is absolutely absurd, given that the fraternity is secular and precipitated on the idea of equality and liberty. On the reverse, the Kentucky state constitution was amended to say “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as legal in Kentucky”, but this issue goes beyond the recognition of marriage to a discrimination based on preference.
The argument is that homosexuality goes against the moral law, but as I’ve pointed out in the past, which Moral Law? As a Mason, I have to say, their argument does not wash and any man who is a just and upright individual can stand and be a Mason. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not a valid argument to exclude from the organization, just as race (and gender) should not be either. To exclude by orientation like this is an undue control over someone in an area that has no consequence to their experience.
By accepting the reality that there are members who are gay, so too do we need to accept the idea of same sex partner widowers, who should be just as important in remembering as the heterosexual counterparts. Yes, this is a dramatic awakening to very real social issue and one that is not insurmountable or destructive towards the institution. To the contrary, to wall the Fraternity behind a morality test of pro-family/anti gay vitriol is a sure fire way to seal the future of the fraternity into a political abyss of social dis-unity. In other words, Freemasonry would no longer be an active participant in civil society becoming instead a political club house.
What do you think? Should Freemasonry be tolerant towards openly Gay members?
I don’t understand how this is even remotely a legitimate question for discussion. Then again, I don’t understand how some Masons (including the GL of Kentucky) think that Prince Hall recognition is even remotely a legitimate question for discussion.
I know that past social mores treat homosexuality as a taboo, but times are changing and anyone who truly believes that our fraternity stands for truth and brotherly love cannot possibly take such a viewpoint. It’s like asking “Should Freemasonry be tolerant to openly Jewish members?”
A brother is a brother does not matter is he is gay, heterosexual, white, brown, black, rich, poor, educated, illiterate, american, jew, catholic, single, married, widowed, etc… It is simple… I don’t see any problem!. If there is a problem is because we use religion as a base we have not understood what or brotherhood is all about… a brother is a brother!
I agree with the G.L. of Kentucky. If you understand the 1st, the 2nd, and the 3rd, you will know that we are keppers of those moral values that makes us who we are. Freemasonry is not a religion nor a social club, it is a way of life in which many of our past Brethren have made many sacrifices to bring the equalities many of us love. We part take with many different Brothers and men of color, religion, and social status. What binds us is the moral and virtue standards we live our lives by.
What could be more un-Masonic than trying to codify intolerance and divisiveness?
I’m heartened to hear that the ammendment did not pass.
I guess we are duty bound to be tolerant of the expressed point of view of ALL our Brethren, – but my personal opinion is that the stance of the minority in this matter is absolutely absurd and totally unacceptable
The issues does open the door to a wider consideration, that as roughly 15% of the U.S. population is gay (see the Gallup Poll data and the Demographics of sexual orientation from Wikipedia statistics) it goes without saying that so too then would the Lodge have a similar percentage of gay members.
Just as clarification, this is probably over-reaching. I mean, roughly 50% of the population are women, roughly 20% of the population is Black, 10% Hispanic, etc. I think you see where I’m going with this.
The makeup of the lodge reflects the makeup of the community, but it’s also biased to some degree by the members themselves, as typically, new members are proposed from the social ranks of existing members.
I agree that one’s sexuality has no bearing on one’s moral or ethical values; I’m just cautioning against drawing conclusions that can’t stand upon the data from which they are drawn.
“Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not a valid argument to exclude from the organization, just as race (and gender) should not be either. To exclude by orientation like this is an undue control over someone in an area that has no consequence to their experience.”
Is this suggesting that women may become Regular Freemasons?
While I can certainly see how homosexuality may make some feel uncomfortable, and even go so far as to generate disharmony within a lodge, I agree that to codify intolerance is not aligned to what we learn and promote within Freemasonry.
I personally think tthat a brother is a brother unless proved otherwise. How many of have brther who turn out to be gays but does that mean that we outcast them.We make sure that the candidate is a man.His sex habbit should not effect a brethen as long as he behaves in the lodge.
Brother is a Brother, that is very ease to say. In this case hi is not a Brother, he is something between “Brother and Sister” and I call them Fruitcake!
I notice trough my masonic traveling few gay masons or at list this was my filing, the way they talk and act…, but as long they are quite and they don’t bother any body with their sexuality they should be in masonry. If they are open gays like this W.M., then should be expel from the order.
He is giving a bad example and I wouldn’t like to bring my sons in the lodge where the Worshipful Master is openly Fruitcake. (hehe)
Dustin, this comes as from the devil’s advocate. I think you can infer from it what you can. By extension, if one negates the idea of discrimination in membership where then is the line to be drawn? Does it follow the line as drawn by society? Or does the institution set its own measure, to which one could then justify the exclusion based on race, creed, or orientation, etc?
Tom, so then do you suggest that the membership is selected, rather than elected? This seems to fly against the idea of “to be one ask one”. The presumption “should” be that the lodge makes up a general composition of the community within which it serves, meaning that it, on the small scale, reflects the population around it.
So, from LGB population statistics “The most widely accepted statistic is that 1 in ever 10 individuals is LGB; however research shows that the number may be more like 1 in 20.” Which means that in a community lodge of 200 members, its possible that 10-20 individuals would be reflected. With some consideration to the subject matter and past attitudes towards that lifestyle, it still stands to reason that a percentage of members COULD still fall into that population.
Does that mean that its catered to? I’d say no more or less than to any other group. But, because it is an increasingly accepted orientation, should it be held in prejudice so as to refuse membership?
Its an area that the Boy Scouts are increasingly taking fire for, but one I think Masonry has avoided by keeping itself out of the media.
To define yourself by your sexual preference to lodge brothers or strangers is shallow and perverted. No matter what religion you may be, homosexuality has always been considered immoral and an abomination, not just in our lifetime. If these individuals were so justified and comfortable about practicing this behavior, then why do they need constant approval and recognition. Is all this not un-Masonic behavior?
Here in the Netherlands 5% of the population is Gay. In my Lodge (40 members, two are Gay). Even our W.S. Master is homosexual. We all see him as our Brother and he is a very fine person. I agree with Bill: A brother is a brother does not matter is he is gay, heterosexual, white, brown, black, rich, poor, educated, illiterate, american, jew, catholic, single, married, widowed, etc… It is simple… We (all members of my Lodge) don’t see any problem!.
Here in Europe, The Netherlands, 5 % of the population is gay. In my Lodge (45 members) two are gay. Even our W.S Master is homosexual. He is our fine Brother and a very nice person. All members agree with Bill: A brother is a brother does not matter is he is gay, heterosexual, white, brown, black, rich, poor, educated, illiterate, american, jew, catholic, single, married, widowed, etc… It is simple… WE!! don’t see any problem!
The presumption “should” be that the lodge makes up a general composition of the community within which it serves, meaning that it, on the small scale, reflects the population around it.
And it does, but there is some bias because *most* of the members of a typical lodge are friends, neighbors, cow-orkers, or family of existing members, and thus some (I would argue “most”) membership is drawn not at random, but from the social circle of the existing members. If none (or very few) of your friends, etc., are gay (black, Italian, engineers, farriers, or whatever), and if the same goes for the other members, then guess what? You’ll have a lodge in which nobody knows how to reshoe a horse, calculate the BTUs of an air conditioner, or redecorate a living room. *
The mitigating factor is that many lodges are now getting more and more members from internet queries, which means that the samples from *this* population are more likely to match the overall makeup of the community.
But, because it is an increasingly accepted orientation, should it be held in prejudice so as to refuse membership?
Please understand that I have no objections whatsoever to gay men in lodge. I happen to believe that one’s sexuality has nothing to do with the contrived “moral laws,” it being something between two or more consenting adults, and nobody else’s business. I only mentioned this point because I believed the assertion that 10% of a lodge is probably homosexual is a faulty underlying assumption.
You may also note that there is a tendency for people to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, which is part of the squick the Boy Scouts have with gay scoutmasters. Unfortunately, there will always be some part of the population at large that preys on the younger and impressionable. Homosexuals do not have a lock on this by any means.
*Stereotyping for comedic effect only.
He is giving a bad example and I wouldn’t like to bring my sons in the lodge where the Worshipful Master is openly Fruitcake. (hehe)
Yes, just as I would not want to bring my children to a lodge where the WM ( or the other members) are openly ignorant and unduly prejudiced.
To define yourself by your sexual preference to lodge brothers or strangers is shallow and perverted.
To define yourself by any narrow criteria is shallow, yet we often give a pass to those who self-identify as Italian or Irish (even though they were born in the US).
From what I’ve read of the story, he was not identifying himself *only* by that criteria; he was merely acknowledging that he was no longer going to live “in the closet” and wanted to be able to pursue a relationship just in the same way that you or I might want to do so.
He’s a member of that lodge, and since he was elected as WM, we can assume that the members believed him to be a decent guy. There’s no reason he should not be able to date, or even to bring a partner to an event.
MTAdmin,
“By extension, if one negates the idea of discrimination in membership where then is the line to be drawn? Does it follow the line as drawn by society? Or does the institution set its own measure, to which one could then justify the exclusion based on race, creed, or orientation, etc?”
Fair enough – I would simply state that the requirements to be a Freemason should be based on our Masonic Landmarks as understood by the GL presiding over the jurisdiction.
I’ve often wondered what state would make the news about this first.
As a gay Mason I’m generally “loud” about my sexuality in social settings but not at Lodge or with Lodge members that I won’t see out in a social setting. Simply too many chances to cause disharmony and frankly I don’t want to deal with it.
In general there are more gay Masons than people realize, but there are also less than the assumed national average. I know of a dozen in Indiana.
Reading the story I’m concerned that the WM in question became a little too aggressive. Without first hand knowledge I’ll never know for sure, but it appears that he pushed the envelope of good taste and forced people to see him where he was unwanted.
Life is a give-and-take. I have had people send me notes and “unfriend” me on Facebook and people who avoid me at the SR and the Shrine – which is fine. I’ve had far more Brothers step up and thank me for being “brave” enough to be open about my life.
At the end of the day, knowing that there are people and Brothers who dislike gays requires tact at coming out to keep disharmony in check but to also be able to live (my) life in a fulfilling way.
At the end of the day, knowing that there are people and Brothers who dislike gays requires tact at coming out to keep disharmony in check but to also be able to live (my) life in a fulfilling way.
I know a few gays here in Conn, and frankly, I have to admire the the balancing act that it must take in order to do just this. Kudos to you, Luke.
Oh, and I didn’t realize you had a new blogsite up. I still remember the old one – was it LiveJournal or something?
How can you not be opposed to gay members in the lodge if you believe the the volume of sacred law? Masonry is not a social experiment it is a moral organization. People try to twist the volume of sacred law to fit whatever they think is right. It doesn’t work that way, we are to adapt to the volume of sacred law. We are to be open to others opinions, and be tolerant, but not at the cost of forsaking what the great architect of the universe has warned against. What does the volume of law that you kissed say on this subject?
Well, we have a VOSL that has John 3:16 in it. Jewish members have kissed it. I don’t think they accept John 3:16 as being valid for them.
My religion welcomes LGBTQ members, and my synagogue welcomes gay and lesbian couples, and recognizes gay and lesbian marriage, which is legal in my US state. Thus there is no moral issue. My religion tells me it’s OK. God as I understand Him tells me it’s OK. None of that is any of my lodge’s business, nor should I ever have to bring that up in lodge. I have gay brothers in my lodge. In my mother lodge, we ask potential candidates if they are willing to call a gay man their brother, and if they cannot so affirm, we do not ballot on them. The gay men have already signed the by-laws, and we stand by them as our brothers, as all good masons should. Standing by your brothers is a much more important duty of our obligations, as far as I’m concerned.
I’ve heard it voiced that some brothers regard homosexuality as immoral, and therefore would have to throw a black cube if a gay man was balloted in their lodge. That is your prerogative as a mason, although I think the same kind of argument was made a century ago (and more recently) that black men are not capable of the kind of moral restraint white men are, and therefore should be blackballed as well. Both arguments disappoint me. We all know Leviticus 18:22, even if few of us understand it, the same way we know that Ham shamed Noah when Noah was drunk, but few of us today use that to justify white supremacy. To conclude that someone who eats pork, wears wool and linen in the same garment, allows his son to disobey him without stoning the son to death, has relations with a menstruating woman, and labors on the Sabbath is justified in blackballing a gay man and/or black man? That seems needlessly self-righteous to me.
Also, making a state-wide Grand Lodge rule shows astonishing lack of faith in one of the Masonic landmarks: the ballot. Lodges are chartered because Grand Lodge trusts the individual lodge to select the right kind of men to become Masons. When a Grand Lodge opens puts that trust into doubt with a ruling, it implies that the Grand Lodge does not trust its Masons to ballot appropriately.
People try to twist the volume of sacred law to fit whatever they think is right.
Interestingly, Bro. Jim, this is exactly my own argument. It seems to me that you (and people of your opinion) are twisting the texts of the VSL to fit your own cultural beliefs.
We are to be open to others opinions, and be tolerant,
Yes, tolerance is generally considered to be a good thing.
but not at the cost of forsaking what the great architect of the universe has warned against. What does the volume of law that you kissed say on this subject?
Are you referring perhaps to the chapters in Leviticus that have outlined a whole bunch of rules and regulations for the people of Israel? Perhaps specifically, you’re looking at Lev. 18, et alia?
Are you suggesting that we take literally all of the laws and regulations that were written for Semitic nomads 5 millenia ago? If so, then allow me to ask you a few questions, just for my own elucidation.
Are you wearing clothes made of different fibers? Cotton/Polyester blends, wool/cotton, linen/cotton, etc.
Do you eat kosher? That is, do you avoid eating shellfish, or the meat of animals with cloven feet?
Assuming that you bought meat on your last grocery shopping trip, did you wash your clothes immediately afterward?
Do you avoid doing any labor at all on Sundays (or whatever your particular sabbath might be)?
How do you maintain your beard, considering that many interpret shaving (“marring the corners of the beard”) to be forbidden?
Does your wife (assuming that you’re married) have to live in a separate area one week a month? (Yeah, you know which week I mean.)
When you or your children get an odd bump or scab on your skin, do you treat it, or do you have the local minister look at it to make sure it’s not leprosy?
I’m assuming that as a Mason, you have not cheated or robbed your neighbor, but have you made sure to pay whatever you owe for another’s labor on that day?
I think that you see where I’m going with this. The Bible (the most commonly used VSL in the US) has dozens (hundred, actually) of little rules, taboos, prohibitions, etc., but over the centuries as our society has moved from nomadic, to agrarian, to industrial, and now to informational, many people have set aside those rules which no longer seem to apply to modern life – in whatever age “modern” seems to have been. Why do you focus on this one prohibition, and not on others?
Again, one’s sexuality is a matter only for consenting adults, and is nobody’s business in the same way that it’s not anybody’s business what kinds of food you like, what magazines you read, or what tv shows you watch.
WB John Wright simply wants what you want: the ability to be judged as a man and a Mason for his fidelity and integrity, the ability to live his life as he sees fit, without harming anyone else. Why this is even a matter up for discussion is beyond me.
God’s word speaks to this by example. God made a woman for Adam (Genesis 2), not a man. He blessed the union of a man and a woman. Homosexuality was never God’s plan. Given this Biblical principle, I believe that while some may or may not be born with a natural disposition towards homosexuality, it is still unmasonic. Freemasonry is not for everyone. If God is accepting of this sexual orientation in modern times, then let them find their peace with God in their local churches.
Since there is undoubtedly a percentage of homosexual Freemasons, I also believe in the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Let’s leave religion, politics and sexual orientation out of the lodge conversation. We can create better unity in our lodges if we categorize sexual orientation in subjects that should not be discussed. I don’t care what religion you are as long as you believe in “God”. I don’t care what political side you vote on, as long as you do your civic duty and vote. And I don’t want to know what you do in the privacy of your own home. Nor is it any of your business what type of sexual relationship my wife and I have. I’d rather see the fruit of your labors as a member of the lodge and your community.
Brethren, we have more important work to do.
I agree with you in a certain regard, but as with the origins of this story, what happens when others decide to tell to create controversy?
If God is accepting of this sexual orientation in modern times, then let them find their peace with God in their local churches.
And while many do, many others do not because their local churches paint them as detestable sinners. Some men have even committed suicide over this, believing that they are shaming their families and communities.
Homosexuality was never God’s plan. Given this Biblical principle, I believe that while some may or may not be born with a natural disposition towards homosexuality, it is still unmasonic.
It’s absolutely amazing to me that people can say on one hand that God created everything, and on the other hand suggest that something he created is sinful.
Your own comment even points to the paradox: You believe it to be “unmasonic”, although you’re willing to overlook it with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Would you be willing to overlook other things as well?
Let he who is without sin throw the first black stone.
This definitely caught my attention. I’m a recently raised MM in Oakland California, and my lodge has been nothing but welcoming and accepting. I’m sure part of that is because I always come to stated dinner with my husband and our two sons, and everyone loves to see them. Part of why Masonry appealed to me is the importance its places on things like a man being a good husband and father – and nothing is more important to me than my family.
At least the bigots are being open about it. That should make them easier to remove.