Of course you have right that interactions on a macropolitical level mostly have to do with earthy interests of the involved political entites. This does not eliminate the possibility of having moral/ethical reasons for some actions, as ethis/beliefs are of course important for political activenes. Indeed, the very idea of having something in common with other individuals (who we do not know personally) is a highly ethical one, and enables us first to contemplate us as a community. What else if not ethics makes us a people?
Personally, I live in a safe country with well functioning democracy - and there is no reason to believe that in my lifetime the situation can turn worse. Neither do I intend to become rich and famous by propagating gay separatism. It is therefore not my personal need which drives me to devote my energy to the idea of a gay state, but solely my ethical beliefs and idealism. Indeed, ethical and moral beliefs have proven to be a very powerfull driving force for human actions in history and in our days.
Therefore, whereas it is certainly true that ethics of political action have to contemplate the entire effective result of the action, it is not said that ethics have not to interfere with politics. In our own cause, it is absolutely legitimate to insist on including lesbians and some other "sexual deviants" into our new-constructed "Volk" - instead of choosing the easier way of limiting the "Volk" only to male homosexuals (without descendancy). You see, out of some reasons you also do not exclude e.g. poor male homosexuals from your definition of "gay" - and your reasons for doing so are for sure not only the consciousness that the gay state would need workers and soldiers for its existence? What if not our ethics will lead us to the conclusion, that sick and old gays are as welcome as young and healthy ones? Ethics do matter.
Personally, I am rather confident that gays can form a souvereign entity even in our lifetimes - it is solely up to us. No heterosexuals prevent us from doing so - only our own inability to cooperate and find a common base made us fail so far. Any souvereign entity indeed does not require a recognition by any other souvereign entity to exercise effective control of its own posessions - that's why it is souvereign. Of course, recognition by at least one territorial state somewhere on this planet would simplify our life immensely - especially to be able to establish the seat of administration without the risk of being permanently raided, disowned and maybe arrested. It is understood, that in those democratic countries which do not recognize our souvereignity, we must act through legal representations in consensus with respective local laws.
The aquisition of territory(s) has not necesserelly to cohere with the process of gaining souvereignity. Whereas it is possible to posess territory without being independent, it is also possible to be souvereign without being a territorial state. To call two (very different) effectively functioning independent organizations: The "Order of Malta" and "Al Qaida" are both effectively souvereign, non-territorial entities. There is no need for us to imitate "Al Qaida", but we certainly can learn effective organization from the "Order of Malta".
It is also possible to entertain gay settlements in souvereign countries without declaring those settlements "independent". Our local representations can actively participate in the live of gay people anywhere - the same way the state of Israel acts in other countries with namable jewish population, or the catholic church acts everywhere in the world. If history offers us then a chance to turn some of our territories into an independent state, we shall use the chance. The preparatory work must be done to enable us effectively use such chances - at the moment we wouldn't be able to establish a state even if Marocco would surrender half of its territory to us.