My Brother fireman 99,
I fully understand, and see your argument, if you in your heart of hearts believe a gay man is against your moral standards, it would be necessary for you to vote your beliefs.
You made two points and I think they must both be addressed, in fairness.
Your moral code might well exclude gambling or dancing. You would never be expected to attend a dance, but does that exclusion mean you would never be a member of a lodge that had dancers as members. I know this is an extreme example, but the point is unchanged.
Next, a gay man is not a woman, and a woman is expressly forbidden by doctrine. Do you know why women are not allowed to be freemasons? I have read an answer or two to this question.
Three seem to be most used:
1.The landmarks of freemasonry forbid it. Not a really solid reason, just a fact of life. It can’t be changed because it is a “landmark rule”. The good answer here is that this is what men who have joined have agreed to do.
2.Masonry is one that remains, and out of respect for its little-understood efficacy, we choose not to tinker with it. (In formal words, we say "...it is not within the power of any man or body of men to make any alteration in the body of Masonry.") In short, the exclusion may be serving some purpose, and since we hardly understand how or why Masonry "works", we don't mess with it.
3.Finally, women are accepted into Masonic lodges, as co-masons and female masons under other systems of freemasonry, and those are not recognized by the F&AM or AF&AM grand lodges in the US. This matter of regularity was defined in the 1700s and their status as irregular prevents Masonic communication or inclusion into our lodges.
How do any of those arguments apply to a gay man? He is not forbidden by landmark, efficacy or tradition. I am not faulting your moral choice, I support it, but the argument that they are simply women in different men's bodies does not hold water.
A better argument might be that we (males who are not gay) have nothing in common with this fellow. Which might be true and I have had a young man come to me as a lodge officer and indicate that he did not feel really comfortable in our lodge. I asked why and he mentioned that everyone in the lodge was about 80 years old and he was 26. I pointed him to another lodge that was in line with his expectations.
That says, a guy might not fit due to age, religion or sexual orientation, but it would not explain why I might blackball anyone under the age of say 55 years because such a problem might exist.
When I apply this logic to a gay man, I would have to say something along the lines of his moral code does not align with mine. That might not work because I can’t accept some religions and their codes of conduct.
If a Islamic Extremist wanted to join my lodge and I asked him if he would bomb a church or a school, I could never vote him into membership, but I have voted a person who is a Muslim into our lodge.
In my humble opinion, voting your moral code would mean viewing each person as you see them. If you can’t abide a man who is gay in your lodge, you should never vote for him but I believe that if I felt that way I would study the issue and if my heart told me that this person would not be a good mason, and a good brother, my vote would be clear.
If on the other hand I felt he could be a valued member of the fraternity and I would be happy to work with him for the betterment of myself and others. I would vote accordingly.
A Masonic Lodge is a place where we learn to be even better than we are today. Those lessons differ for every man. The road along the path to being an enlightened person might well be considered highly customized for each of us. A traveler can see only what he can see from his place on the path. You are not at all wrong to vote against someone you feel does not fit your view of a good man, or a good mason.
If part of that criteria is his race, religion, sexual preference or age, and that is how you see it with you best moral judgment in mind, then you are 100% correct. The reason 1 negative vote is a killer in the lodge is because we have agreed to have no contention except whether one man can work better than another. If this would be a point of contention, it should be justification for a blackball.
In the end you must live with every vote you make and I must live with mine. I can’t recall a person I have cast a blackball against, but that does not mean I never will, nor does it mean that I would ever do so with lesser or greater reason.
No matter the outcome, we are first and foremost brothers and you would always enjoy my support.