Well, assuming the nuclear option happens on either or both grand lodges. Then the PHA grand lodge in either or both states could request recognition. Then they would be the senior grand lodge? Hmm. Maybe?
If UGLE pulls recognition over this issue *by calling it a move away from regularity*, MWPHGLofGA and MWPHGLofTN should very definitely request recognition from UGLE as they will then be the only regular jurisdictions in their territory. The UGLE has declared the emergence of PHA Masonry regular based on the circumstances of the time and based on the fact that African 459 tried to stay loyal to and in contact with the Premier GL of England who had issued their charter. The UGLE has declared the PHA family regular. They only recognize when local recognition is in place so it should work.
I would be surprised in the UGLE would cite irregularity as the reason for pulling recognition. I predict that the UGLE will avoid comment as long as they can hoping this American matter will settle down on its own without input from them.
I haven't read the ruling from TN or GA, but are they claiming this ruling against homosexuals on religious grounds? If so, then yes, I can see it violating a landmark. But what if they say 'no homosexuals because we think it's icky'?
They cite moral grounds, thus dodging the fact that what they are doing is bringing a religious law from exactly one religious family into their assemblies. It probably never even occurred to them that's what they were doing.
If they took up a policy of dropping cubes, no one would have noticed for a long time and there's no reason for other jurisdictions to pull recognition. The locals would notice and the new generation would avoid Masonry actively instead of passively. Those jurisdictions would go the way of the Odd Fellows.
Also on the PH GLs - Most assume the F&AM GLs are the ones withholding recognition but what if its the otherway around?
It is easily shown that many PHA jurisdictions refuse to recognize. Here's a quote from the GLofCA recognition list as of 2014 starting page 459 of the 2014 Proceedings -
The Grand Lodge of California has extended an offer of mutual recognition with
the following Prince Hall Grand Lodges, but mutual recognition has not yet
been established. Visitation between our members and members of Lodges
under the jurisdiction of these Grand Lodges cannot yet be made. When mutual
recognition is established, the Grand Secretary will notify our Lodges in writing.
ARIZONA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Arizona and Its Jurisdiction*;
CONNECTICUT: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Connecticut, Inc. (29); HAWAII:
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Hawaii and Its Jurisdiction*; ILLINOIS: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of Illinois INDIANA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Indiana, Inc.*;
IOWA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Iowa and Jurisdiction*; KANSAS: Prince
Hall Grand Lodge of Kansas and Its Jurisdiction*; MARYLAND: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of Maryland and Its Jurisdiction*; MICHIGAN: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of the Jurisdiction of Michigan*; MINNESOTA: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge Jurisdiction of Minnesota, Inc.*; NEW JERSEY: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of New Jersey, Inc.*; NEW YORK: Prince Hall Grand Lodge
Jurisdiction of New York, Inc.*; NORTH CAROLINA: Prince Hall Grand
Lodge of North Carolina and Jurisdictions, Inc.*; OHIO: Prince Hall Grand
Lodge of the State of Ohio, Inc.*; OKLAHOMA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge
Jurisdiction of Oklahoma*; VIRGINIA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge Jurisdiction of
Virginia*; WASHINGTON: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington State and
Its Jurisdiction*; WISCONSIN: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, Inc.*
That's 18 PHA jurisdictions that have not bothered to recognize California by not responding to California's offer. In comparison when I tabulate the list of PHA jurisdictions that have returned California's offer I discovered there are 2 PHA jurisdictions California fails to list. I have corresponded with the Gr Sec a few times to see if that's a misprint* or those 2 just fell through the cracks at the time.
This means that the number of PHA jurisdictions that ignores California is 9 times the number that California ignores. And twice the number that don't have local recognition. That's only for California. I bet there is a LOT of missing recognition completeness in both branches of our family.
To PMs, WMs, SWs and JWs in all states I recommend that you look up your own recognition list and submit legislation to complete the set.
I am a PM in Illinois so I have a vote there as well - Illinois recognizes every PHA with local recognition (called "blanket") and does not even track which PHA jurisdictions have responded.
I am in the line in TX so for the moment I don't have a vote in that jurisdiction yet - It'll be a few years before I look up the Texas list and ask that it be completed.
*Based on discussion with my wife last night I am highly likely to attend California GL this October. Since I'm going I need to force this issue by submitting legislation because I'll be there to defend it. No one will object to completing the list.