Please correct me if I am wrong. I thought that if one were in another state and violated that jurisdictions rules and was punished in that state by that GL for said violation it was recognized in that members home state GL also.
With that said, I wonder if the best possible outcome would be for a amicable separation of sorts between the GL's and the Shrine. Numbers are important to all sides of the equation as far as membership is concerned. We can see this when the Shrine decided that Scottish Rite and York Rite was no longer needed as a stepping stone to membership. Their numbers didn't increase like they hoped it would. There are Masons out there who have never been to a Lodge meeting since they received their 3rd degree and feel that it was a waste of time and money and continues to be a drain on them every year at dues time. They joined just to be a Shriner.
That same year, the separation of York and Scottish Rites, Shrine proposed that a person should be allowed to become a Shriner first and start the process of Masonic membership within a definite timeline or risk loss of membership if they failed to start their steps to Lodge membership. It would have allowed them the opportunity to recruit easier.
The sad part is to all of this is that there are good people out there that could be members of a great organization, pick anyone group including non-masonic, and don't because of lack of understanding of its programs, requirements to join, or even who its members are and where they meet. When something like this comes along it gives bad press to the organization as a whole as well as its separate parts.
I sincerely hope that they can look at this in a rational and logical way at some point and realize they are doing more damage then the good they are doing. Ironically, many Shriners that I know in my state have not even heard of this going on. Would their participation in a group in any one of these states hurt their status. More then likely it would based on my understanding of the Masonic Code.