Looks like my old jurisdiction is leading a charge of being brotherly to co and female Masons. Welcomed certainly by me. It makes sense for a state like California to have a more accepting and liberal grand lodge. I am of the opinion that some day full acceptance of female Masons will come and it won't be in the far off future. The numbers simply demand it. I think it will be a grand lodge like California, Oregon or Minnesota to lead the way. Well, they are my pick anyway.
This is a good article on a very positive development.
By Karen Kidd, PM(I speak only for me) The Grand Lodge of California, the state’s largest male-only Masonic body, apparently has suddenly concluded that it’s OK with women and mixed Fre…
masonicmouse.org
An article from 2019? I was invited to a female-only installation in 1999 in California. That's "olds" rather than "news".
I promised to not enter a tiled meeting of women who call themselves Masons. I didn't promise to deny that they live by our principles. I also didn't promise to refuse to go to some meeting that's open to the public not tiled.
I don't know if our jurisdictions will move towards open by gender. Should that happen, we still have generations who promised to not cross a tiler when a lady is in attendance. I thought about the gender topic for a long time. It's a tempest in a teapot. Coed and female only jurisdictions have under one percent of our male only membership. The numbers don't remotely say it's inevitable.
Our society needs single gender sanctuary societies. For men and separately for women. I think that's a general human need not even particularly Masonic in origin. We just happen to be one of the few societies left who deliver on that need. So we're in the crosshairs of those who see a need for involuntary integration but not a need voluntary separation.
Any of us and/or any of our wives could petition to become Oddfellows. They did integrate. I'm happy to watch how history sorts out that topic. We all know how cliche' it is - I have friends who are Oddfellows. They are good people.
For many years I have asked myself a list of questions. Do my jurisdictions have the moral authority to make some random moral decision for me? How does my oath dictate my actions relative to some random moral topic?
Before my obligations, I was told that my obligations would not interfere with the duty I owe to God, my country, my neighbor or myself. That's called context. But it just kicks the can farther down the road. What is duty itself?
Importantly, if I figure out answers for myself to those questions, I certainly have no authority to impose my own answers on anyone else. And THEN what does it mean when one of my Grand Lodges tries to pull what I view as imposing their own morality onto me? Where does their authority end, given the context that was explained to me before I took my obligations?
I see this discussion needs to be applied to 3 categories of topics.
One is gender. Once I figured out that it's a tempest in a teapot, I stopped caring. I view single gender organizations as a social need.
Second is clandestine status. One of my sponsors was a Prince Hall Mason. That was before recognition started rolling around. I sort of care about lineage. I sort of care about how well or badly someone followed the rules when they declared some Grand Lodge. But I also understand that in some situations were were no good choices. So I don't really care about clandestine status at the same time as declining to pass a tiler into one of their meetings.
Third is jurisdictions pulling recognition over various topics. I have asked myself very closely if any one pulling of recognition is about a topic I care about or grant authority on. This one is where I diverge from blind obedience. I petitioned for membership in a Tennessee lodge without surrendering my California life membership. I deny the moral authority to pull recognition in that situation. It's the difference between blind obedience and my view of duty to my neighbor.
About a year ago we moved from near Austin, TX to near Knoxville, TN. I have affiliated with a local lodge. I've been through the line twice so I'm not going through the line again. But I do learn enough to take smaller parts in degrees ...
By the way, as you read this post I ask you to play a Steely Dan song inside your head. The Logical Song. They call me a radical, a liberal. Nice tune to give background for this context.
Pasadena 272, CA. Barrington 522, IL. Lombard 1098, IL. Tranquility 2000, TX. Faith 756, TN. If your jurisdiction is a single affiliation one, play that Steely Dan song and call me a radical ...
