It is possible at any stage to "declare independence", though no one can tell the future or what would happen If such were to happen. It generally depends on what country it invovles.
This is surely true. Generally, any declaration of independence makes sense only if the newly-independent people is willing and able to actually exercise an "effective control" upon the territory it's claiming. It means, the newly-independent people administrates the territory and citizens on it's own, makes the laws and is able to enforce them, raises and spends money and pays no tribute to any foreign power. The sovereignty also means, than no citizen can be arrested by any foreign power and be brought outside of the country without permission of the legitimate government. Now, the declaration of independence makes therefore no sense if the government/administration is not able to guarantee the actual sovereignty (or lead the people into an armed conflict to
defend one's sovereignty). Therefore any real effort to create a new country must involve political considerations about the consequences and the ways to guarantee the existence of the state
before issuing bold declarations. At the same time, the establishing of a new country as such is nothing unusual, as we have seen in the last decades: Timor-Leste, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and so on. Even Abchasia and Taiwan, though not recognized, are de-facto independent states and execute effective controll over their territories (thanks to military support of Russia resp. USA, however). As a small folk it's helpfull to have mighty allies,
ours could be some of the liberal democratic countries like Canada or the EU. However, international recognition is not a required criterion to form an independent nation - the effective control and means of self-defence is suffice fully.
It is possible to enforce right now certain key aspects of political independence and sovereignty,but not to the point of setting up a complete
state apparatus.We may for instance delineate on maps and then merely use on site a territory as a state would do it in certain respects,without
official or internationally recognized title of possession.One of the first acts of a politically separate and independent human community consists in
defining who are its members,and sorting out nationals from foreigners. Since such a differenciation does not really involve any physical act,it does not lend itself to any physical opposition either.Religious jews have done that for the last 3,000 years,that is having a definition of who is a jew, without having an independent state of theirs for most of that time. [..]
Possibilities you are describing are of course the way we can begin to solidify the community. However, I see a certain confusion on the proper use of term "state" while you actually mean "people". A "state" has authority and means to exercise power towards it's citizens, e.g. to enforce law and revenues flow, detain criminals and so on. How do you imagine performing of such actions on the territory of existing states without annexing their territory? Any activism in such a direction is undoubtedly a severe criminal behavior and will be not tolerated by
any authorities! Sure, such structures
do exist, they are called "state in state" (mafia, yakuza and the like)...
If we are describing the LGBT-people as a folk, it is quite another thing. We could legally organize us, raise money as membership dues and spend this money for purposes are good for our people. As a diasporic people/nation we would not differ in this relation from any other diasporic folk, such as Armenians or Jews or Chicanas. Indeed, many of such institution already exist, but unfortunately in a very rudimentary extent, if we consider the huge number of humans who fall into the
Queer categorie.
But you are touching also another very interesting question, namely who does belong to the
Queer People and who does not. I think, too many of the micronationalists tend (unfortunately) to claim the exclusive right upon the queer population without asking the people. Whereas it is fully legitimate to talk about the
"Queer People" and
"LGBT-community" from scientific point of view, it is absolutely unacceptable to regard someone
automatically as citizen or claim the exclusive representation for the entire "gay tribe", whatever it can be. For example, the deceased "Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea" was acting somewhat like it was
the sole legitimate representative of the gay community on the world stage, as well as the "Gay and Lesbian Commonwealth Kingdom" does in it's ORDINANCE OF CITIZENSHIP: "All Gays and Lesbians are automatically citizens of the COMMONWEALTH KINGDOM by birthright". I also remember that in a contribution "Who is Gay?" on the
alt.politics.homosexuality forum dated 1 Feb. 1998 you (K6) have suggested to deprive gay men with descendants of their gay citizenship rights:
"Parenthood should be a factor in deciding who is gay and who isn`t. Alledged gay parents are,to all intents and purposes,part of hetro continuity,history and supremacy through their mostly heterosexual descendants.They have deliberately excluded homosexuality from the lives of other human beings of their own flesh and blood,by bringing and rearing them into a world where no individual has an honest and fair chance to become gay".You shall admit, this notion to determine who is "truly gay" in such a restrictive form is highly questionable and excludes obviously gay people from our community for an actually
honorable behaviour - giving live to new human being. We also cannot make an actually existing sexual activities of a person to be a criterion of "gayness" - instead, a self-estimation as "homosexual" shall suffice, so long no opposite behavior is proving something contrarily.
Generally, I think the answer to the question of
who is sufficiently gay will be not that much easy and shall be discussed more intensely. Even the Jewish people have a set of detailed regulations on the subject of Jewish peoplehood, we probably would need something like this too. But, no matter how detailed such guildlines will be, there always will be some cases, where the decision will be made by simple common sense. Far more delicate question is e.g. how to treat bisexuals? In doubt, I personally tend to a more generous (inclusive) definitions.
