Georgia pondering

[dfreybur]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

" Revised March 1983"

It's older than I thought...

 

[GrandJojo]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.



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.



Good question indeed!

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?