"Men"

[JJones]

Here's where I see the problem...

I said it in another thread and I'll say it again here; our oaths were not given before the GL, they were given before GAOTU. For that reason, no ruling from the GL can change what we swore to. Even if the GL comes out and says 'yeah, we're cool with trannies' I still have to answer to the big man upstairs.

Agreed. What a man swears is what a man swears, you can't go back and edit your oath like it was some form of legal document.

 

[pointwithinacircle2]

The unfortunate thing here is that the GLs are going to be put in a VERY difficult position.

Honestly, I doubt that any Grand Lodge will rule on something as dicey as what does and does not constitute the male gender. (Unless it can be determined using geometry - lets see, if the angle of the dangle - OMG!, Where is the delete button!) Seriously, ruling on this issue would be as inappropriate as ruling on which religions believe in an acceptable God. OH NO! we're doomed!

 

[hanzosbm]

...Unless it can be determined using geometry - lets see, if the angle of the dangle...

Well that seems a little harsh. With as many older Masons as we have in our lodges, there's going to be a number of them who can't raise it to a living perpendicular...

 

[coachn]

Well that seems a little harsh. With as many older Masons as we have in our lodges, there's going to be a number of them who can't raise it to a living perpendicular...

Isn't that what your Lewis is used for; Raising your Stones?

 

[hanzosbm]

Lewis, Viagra, whatever it takes...

 

[dfreybur]

Honestly, I doubt that any Grand Lodge will rule on something as dicey as what does and does not constitute the male gender.

With the tiny population of transgendered and the chance of it being handled at the ballot box, I expect any jurisdiction asked to buck the question back to the local level. It won't come up often enough for any sort of ruling to be made.

 

[coachn]

That is, not until there's a court challenge.

 

[hanzosbm]

I think GL is going to get pulled into it whether they like it or not. The second a single lodge anywhere in the country tries to initiate a transgender person, the dominos will start to fall. Imagine a "progressive" lodge someplace like San Francisco or Portland goes ahead with it. Any other Mason in that district gets wind of it and doesn't like it and tries to have them brought up on charges, and now it's started.

 

[pointwithinacircle2]

I think GL is going to get pulled into it whether they like it or not. The second a single lodge anywhere in the country tries to initiate a transgender person, the dominos will start to fall. Imagine a "progressive" lodge someplace like San Francisco or Portland goes ahead with it. Any other Mason in that district gets wind of it and doesn't like it and tries to have them brought up on charges, and now it's started.

We should be fine unless a member of that Lodge has posted on a Masonic BB that they would vote against such a person. Then we have a conspiracy.

 

[coachn]

and then, dogs and cats shall start living together in sin.

 

[Warrior1256]

Typically, the answer would be "no." Having mis-matched chromosomes is one of the ancient landmarks of the Craft.

With the current cultural and political interest in gender issues, there's a lot of discussion going on in the various masonic forums (including elsewhere on this one), with lots of argument on either side and not a small bit in the middle. It will depend a great deal on the individual lodge... but one of the ancient landmarks for recognition of a grand jurisdiction is that it makes Masons "of men only."

Admission to Freemasonry is controlled by the ballot box in the blue lodge, subject to the rules and edicts set forth by itsparent grand jurisdiction.Freemasonry is not for everyone, and the ballot box makes that cut. Each individual Mason is charged to search within his heart, and vote for the good of the Craft. Me personally? I would have a hard time casting a white ball in this circumstance.

Same here.

 

[Brother_Steve]

Eduted. Not germane to the conversation.

 

[hanzosbm]

When I was initiated I was happy to swear allegiance to the GAOTU.

But the obligation also required me to swear allegiance to whatever Grand Lodge had secured that exclusive territory, and swear allegiance to the only lodge easily accessible.

I was not warned before the ceremony that unless I swore allegiance to the human organizations and their rules I would not be initiated.

So does the GAOTU agree with exclusive territory?

And is the GAOTU male?

If being male is so important why are we sons of the Widow rather than brothers of Hiram? Would we admit the Widow if she could prove herself?

I suspect that GLs have edited our history and landmarks for their own benefit.

If I'm understanding your point correctly brother, you are pointing out that it is possible for one's obligation to be conflict with itself. If we swore to never admit a woman, and also to follow the directives of the Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge tells us to admit a woman, we're in a no win situation. Normally, we'd say that the GL would never issue an edict in opposition to parts of the obligation, but this exact situation shows us that grey areas do exist that make things dramatically more complicated.