Rhetoric or righteousness?
I was reanalyzing the expulsion of Kentucky Mason John Wright, and the thought occurred to me, was the gay issue in the charges or were they part of a means to color a (still) witch hunt based on otherwise slightly promiscuous behavior.
Reviewing the formal charge document, they read that the recipient “violated his oath and obligation, by his own admission, of having engaged in one or more relationships prior to the finalization of his divorce.
So no mention of his persuasion, but rather what seems to me an intrusion of his personal life.
Is it justifiable to questions a man’s oath and obligation on the grounds that he confesses pre-marital intercourse? And, if the answer is in the affirmative, is it reason to expell a member?
If we start to police with that kind of morality, how many others will be shown the door?
Maybe the conclusion that the issue was on the grounds of Wright being gay were premature, though its easy to lose the subtext to the overt finding.
But what does that say to the rest of the fraternity?
Are you guilty of premarital sex? Does that make you any less a “good man”?
You seem to be ignoring the other charges, those of having revealed Masonic Communications to a non-mason. Even ignoring his sexual preferences and promiscuity, it would seem those would be charge enough.
It would seem to me the the whole purpose of the exercise of Freemasonry is to seek enlighten of our fellow Masons. Can’t do that if you expell them.
As I’ve said before, if the charges are related to his sexual orientation, that is wrong. The charges as laid out in the charges document does not imply that however, and while the third charge alone does seem a bit overreaching, when added to charges 1 and 2, I do see the potential reasoning behind having a trial. I am obviously not in a position to judge and declare anyone innocent or guilty, that would be up to those involved in the trial to determine, but I will say that I see violation of the obligations to very serious. I know somebody commented on the previous story that it seems silly to charge someone with that considering how much “secret” information is available online, but I see it quite differently. As Masons we are bound to the fraternity by our obligations — obligations which we take in front of the brethren and in front of God. If somebody willingly breaks the promises they have made, they have, in my mind, intentionally cut the tie which binds them to the fraternity.
I agree that the other charges can bring someone to task, what ever those “secrets” might be, but when you cloud the issue with when someone does and dosen’t engage in adult relations seems t mute out what ever else is at the end of the finger pointing.
If you look at this as a timeline story:
1) John comes out.
2) John gets a divorce.
3) John gets called names prior to opening stated meeting.
4) John’s sexuality is made “public” knowledge.
5) A movement is made to “ban” gays from being members of KY GL.
6) John reveals this to the media and to Masonry in general – I’d have never known about it.
7) A letter is filed against John for both his “abandoning” his wife and for revealing Masonic information (not secrets in terms of the words or grips, but business info)
8) John is expelled for trying to make sure other people know what’s going on.
From what I can tell John reveal business proceedings of the GL to a media source saying that the anti-Gay amendment in KY had failed. But he highlighted it because of the attacks against himself – by protecting himself against bigots he got himself thrown out.
That’s why as a Gay Mason in Indiana I keep a Masonic lawyer on speed dial to handle my battles for me. 😛