Hi All, and especially Bro. Beathard.
Sorry to "unclarify" things, but the general situation is more complicated than you imply.
Since it appears that GLTX has a specific rule which says "host GL law applies instead" when visiting out of State, what Beathard says is therefore correct for GLTX members. But it's not necessarily correct for others, and it can cease to be correct for you if you dual-affiliate outside Texas.
However, NOT all GLs have a rule saying "host GL law applies instead". If you're a member of a GL which doesn't have this rule, then the default worldwide masonic jurisprudence is that the law of your OWN GL still applies to you wherever you are.
For example, since I'm a UGLE member, and since UGLE doesn't have a "host GL law applies instead" rule, I'm still under UGLE rules if I visit Texas. Which means I can visit both GLTX and PHATX, because we exchange full visiting rights with both, even though you can't visit one another. BUT if UGLE had a "host GL law applies instead" rule, then BOTH GLTX and PHATX would be my host jurisdictions, so I'd be under the rules of both, which means that I wouldn't be able to visit in Texas AT ALL - because the GLTX rule would say I couldn't visit PHATX and the PHATX rule would say I couldn't visit GLTX!
However, if I move to Texas and remain a UGLE member but also dual-affiliate to GLTX, then I lose the right to visit PHATX, which I have until joining GLTX. Or for that matter, if I dual-affiliate to PHATX instead (which UGLE does allow), then I lose the right to visit GLTX.
More complicated still, if I dual-affiliate to some other GL (outside Texas) which DOES have the "host GL law applies instead" rule, and then visit Texas, then if that other GL DOESN'T recognise PHATX I'll be able to visit GLTX, but if the other GL DOES recognise PHATX then again I'm stuck in the position that I can't visit anyone in Texas because the GLTx and PHATX rules combine to block all options.
There's another worldwide principle of masonic jurisprudence which underlies all this. Contrary to what someone else implied earlier in this thread, joining a second GL doesn't magically release you from your obligations to your original GL. Instead, both GL's laws now apply to you all at once. In other words, if EITHER of your GLs say you can't visit some third GL, then you can't visit, even if your other GL would allow the visit.
Therefore, if a GLTX member joins UGLE's Internet Lodge #9659 (as someone suggested), then he still can't visit PHATX.
The most shocking consequence, so far as I can see, is that if any other USGL outside Texas has a "host GL law applies instead" rule (and many do, although I think not all), and if that other USGL now recognises PHATX, then the PHATX rule (as one of the host GLs) means that the other USGL loses the right to visit GLTX! Since there are about a dozen States where the State GL has granted "blanket" recognition of PHA (therefore including PHATX), and since it is likely that some of these dozen do have the "host GL law applies instead" rule, it seems quite likely that you've already welcomed visits from numerous Brethren who in fact are not permitted to visit you (although they probably don't realise that they can't).
Frankly, Brethren, it's a mess, and very difficult for a Brother to keep track of where he can or can't go! My own opinion is that the "host GL law applies instead" rule is a mistaken attempt to simplify things which has instead had the effect of making things more complex, and that instead we should have a consistent rule everywhere that a Brother is always under the jurisdiction of the GL in which he's actually a member.
T & F,
Huw