What gives California or DC the right to pass judgment on another jurisdiction?
The landmark against introducing sectarian discussion in a tiled meeting. When you violate one of the landmarks you exist regular Masonry.
I get that not everyone is going to agree that banning gays equals introducing sectarian discussion in a tiled meeting. Does anyone disagree that's a landmark, though?
Explain to me how punishing an entire jurisdiction over one decision that a GL made benefits the whole of freemasonry?
When you discard the sanctuary feature of Masonry in one place you damage Masonry everywhere. Pulling recognition is the only option available between jurisdictions.
Do the GL's of DC or Cali recognize every PHA that UGLE recognize? For that matter, if freemasonry in these jurisdictions are so perfect, than why do PHA even exist, shouldn't all men meet on the level?
I'm not sure why you try to change the subject or why you pretend that history didn't happen, but I'll answer the first question anyways -
GLofDC is the first jurisdiction to grant blanket recognition - Automatically recognizing any PHA jurisdiction that gains local recognition. When another PHA state is recognized DC no longer has to vote. For them it's already handled and they automatically send the recognition notice. Multiple states have emulated the DC model for blanket recognition. Be clear what blanket recognition is and isn't.
California votes recognition for PHA jurisdictions every time a local recognition happens. Two jurisdictions have fallen through the cracks. I have active correspondence with the California Gr Sec on the topic. I need to submit legislation on the matter. I suspect that when the GM sees the paperwork he'll add it to the agenda instead of listing it among the topics voted on.
These boycotts won't change anyone's mind
Was that true in Florida a couple of years ago? At least on jurisdiction voted that they would pull recognition if the edict banning by named religion was ratified. In the case of TN that's the same situation - TN has the chance to vote down their edict and stay regular.
I am surprised that this action was taken without intermediate steps. When GEKT formed its clandestine rectified rite, Mark Mason Hall gave notice it would consider withdrawing recognition at its next general purposes meeting. GEKT cleaned up its act before the meeting and no action was required. If CA and had announced their intention at CGMNA less than a month ago, it would have given notice both to TN and DC, but also to its sister GLs who may have supported the action, and lead to change without this sanction. Further, it is widely reported that this matter was to be addressed at the next TN Communication. Why not give notice and wait another six weeks for the matter to be addressed?
I read the GM Decision. TN does in fact have the chance to have recognition if they vote down this move into irregularity.
I echo your question about advance announcement back at GA and TN. They are the ones who decided to exit regular practice so they are the ones who should have announced at the CGMNA conference.
I'm not surprised that CA and DC took a long time to act. I've wondered if any jurisdiction would act.