GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Central Issues  (Read 7100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #23 on: Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 14:39 »

Recognition as a people

One of the innovative ideas of the recent gay nationalism movement was the suggestion to define the LGBT-community as a people and seek a recognition before the United Nations. This was apparently also the main motivation behind the selling of passports and citizenship certificates by the deceased GLK - to give some signs of cultural "homeland". Though the praxis was certainly ill-fated and didn't separate between affiliation to a state versus affiliation to a people, the idea behind it was pretty smart.

Jon Matlick, the former Lord Protector of the GLK has commented in our Caffé and brought it to the point:

[/color][...] It was a GOOD idea with a lot of potential. Not because it would give GLTBi people a place to escape and go live in isolation. Not because it was/is important to have a territory to claim as our own. It was a GOOD idea because IF “Official” recognition could have been achieved it would have given the Global GLTBi community a voice on the world stage.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 15 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, among others, could have been better enforced and violation prosecuted before the International Court of Justice. In my mind, THIS was the ultimate goal of gaining recognition as an Independent Nation and therefore the reason that a territory was important. This is why I stuck with the “Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea” for as long as I saw even a glimmer of hope that the goal might be achieved. [...]

In my reply, I have noted that it was then not necessarily to claim a territory to seek recognition as a people:

[/color][...] a recognition by United Nations was/is an important part of the original project and its successors. Though I do not share your views about lacking necessity to be able to actually offer refuge to real human beings, I understand that it would be a greate step forward by a recognition as a people (not necessarily as a nation). You see, Sinty and Roma are peoples, not nations as well as many diverse minorities living abroad. All of them are in posession of passports of their host land, but they are protected as minorities. Is this a kind of status you would appreciate for the gay people? So why claim Cato? Wouldn't a rightfully acquired cattle farm serve much better? One can have different opinion about the real use of such level of recognition, and I am not sure that a tiny state on a tiny reef would change the situation for the gay people considerably. [...]

This point (being a people independently from having a territory) is one of our central issues, I think. Indeed, the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" guarantees in its article 15: 1) the right to have a nationality and 2) the right to change one's nationality. Why shall we not define our own nationality and take advantage of our rights? There are no rules prescribing the procedure for definition of a nationalithy, in doubt the self-counsciousness certainly shall suffice.

The recognition as a people would hopefully lead to consolidation within the GLBT-community and strengthen our appearence to the world in generall. The self-counsciousness as a people will not only help in talks for our self-administered territory, it would lead to a higher cultural output and a rise in solidarity within the GLBT-communities.

The approach followed by the "Unified Gay Tribe" might be a good first attempt in this direction, if thought consequently as a definition of a "tribe" and not a "state", which it of course is not. Hovewer, the all-inclusive definition of this tribe is less helpful to actually determine what makes us different from other peoples, as till last developements anybody non-homophobic could become member of this tribe. The same is true for the "Gay Commonwealth Kingdom". The political correctness is a good habit, but not a very practicable thing when you are describing a people and establishing a nation. I hate to write this here, but heterosexuals do not belong to the primarily targeted groups - they are simply "not of the same blood". It would be much more important to actually integrate gays and lesbians from outside of the US and Europe than care about heterosexual grandmothers and cousines. Much more attention must be paid to the needs of our brothers and sisters in the third world: for them it's not that much a question of equal jobs opportunities, but a simple question of life and death.

We will need a very serious discussion about the definition of our people. Are the gay and lesbian people affiliates of our new-defined people (likewise "tribe" or "nation") by the right of mere existence, or is a membership in a specified organization required? Isn't it completely illogical then that a heterosexual member of such an organization is a "tribe member" and a homosexual non-member is not? How comes that there are various organizations claiming the exclusive right to represent the entire LGBT-population on this planet?

My answer to this dilemma is, that the "gay people" exists independently from any organization - just as roma and sinti do exist without the need to be formally "declared". The only thing we can do is, to try and describe this folk by it's peculiar customs and traditions and look forward strengthening it's self-consciousness as a people. It would be helpful as well if our people would have the possibility to affiliate to any of our regional/international groups under the common agende of being one folk, independently on organizatory structures.

A (territorial) state requires a government, while a folk as such does not. A folk needs institutions, coordinating its cultural, political and economical developement and lobbying it's intersts on regional and international level. We must admit, that the GLBT-people already has many such institutions on national and even few on international level. What we need is to make the next step and achieve a new quality of this coordination - a true multi-lingual LGBT-community with one central library, one central archive and one common history. Private initiative is a wonderfull thing, but some large projects require a "national effort" for their realization. All this we could achieve, even without having a state of our own - the self-consciousness as a people and smart management would suffice fully.

Imagine, how great our potential would increase, if we would have full access to our ressourcess in form of taxes in a country of our own. Though the self-administered LGBT-territory is not necessary to be recognized as a people, it would bring us significant progress both in cultural and humanitarian aspect and therefore should be one of our central goals, as well.

We should investigate the possibility of cooperation with ethnographic organizations which might turn out to be helpful on our struggle for public recognition as a people like any other. For example, "The Society for threatened peoples", located in Göttingen/Germany, has a long history of human rights work in connection with endangered ethni - we should carefully contact them and ask for recognition as a people as well. This will be not easy, but upon some time we might succeed - and there are more organizations of this kind, and they form the public opinion step by step.

Website of "The Society for threatened peoples": http://www.gfbv.de/ (english version selector on the left upper corner);
List of peoples in question: http://www.gfbv.de/bedrohte_voelker.php
[/color]
« Last Edit: Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 14:58 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #22 on: Sat, Aug 13, 2005, 06:34 »

Sure, the normal governmental work will have to be done - with all the usuall instruments known in the modern world. Personally, I am fond of the separations of powers - with legislative, executive and judicative branches. The people should elect their representatives to make laws, administrate the public resources and determin appropriate personalities to be judges. This system seems to be the best known for any progressive society of equal individuals.

On the other hand, the legal system in a country should relate to the actual needs of a society. For example, there is no need to discuss any legislation on nuclear plants, when none are to be built anyway, heh? All the paper-work we are acquainted with in our native countries derives from the complexity of these societies and the sheer amount of their citizens.  Probably, we would need a basic set of legislative acts - a constitution, a civil code and a criminal code. Some financial and administrative legislation might come additionally, but most arising questions could be decided depending on the real needs.

What would be our primary needs? Should there be a village of 500 people to be "governed", they would be pretty comfortably served with a chiftain, a council of the eldest (or smartest), and a medicine man. A city of 5.000 inhabitants would need a senate, some judges and small police forces. A Polis of 200.000 citizens would probably require the same level of administration as any western democracy - with all its complexity. We would have a small parliament, a government and a couple of courts then. A representative position with mostly moral power wuld be nice, too - a president, a mahatma or just an old chieftain.

As most of our people will stay in their countries of origin, an important task will be to care for those people. Just look that the strong ones come together with those who need help, and "spread the word". The rich ones should be asked for financial support, the smart ones for a good advice and the creative ones for cultural contributions. For such activities we will need representatives in the local communities, this would be our "foreign department". Not that much to perform high-level diplomatic meetings with chancellors and emperors, but to care for our people outside of the "homeland" and distibute the ressources.

At this point it might be suitable to remember, that any future government does not need to care for everything - a lot of the social work can be done by non-political public institutions. For example, the health care policy can be determined by a comitee which is independent from any current government. The members of such comitees can be appointed with years step-by-step, so they can act on their conscience and without regard of any political loyalties.

Again, the beginning will depend on the legal status of the "gay settlement" and progresses which it will be able to achieve on its way to the self-administration. It's rather unlikely we would be able to find a law-free territory and to establish there our regement from one day upon another. Most probably we'll start officially with a kind of a "local neighbour-helps-neighbour commitee", looking for encreasing role of our self-administration step by step. And, no revolutions, please! I'm very cautious about my life and would prefere to keep my body in one piece as long as possible.
« Last Edit: Sat, Aug 13, 2005, 06:41 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Solo

  • A One-Man Show...
  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 28
  • * Gay Super Hero *
    • Scribblings of a Madman...
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #21 on: Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 08:39 »

Yes, yes.  I second the motion of making Viktoria, the Imperical Empress of the Gay Empire of Earth.  Hehehe...  Okay, okay, okay...  joking aside:

I think a gay government needs consistency with the ideals it projects to its citizens.  I think secrecy, cover-ups and need-to-know-basis information are damaging to any/all societies in which they exist.  Granted, I can appreciate the protection of sensitive information that would otherwise be used as means to undo our efforts, there has got to be a system of government that keeps the citizens empowered, and not powerless and voiceless victims to legal maneuverings of a tasteless nature.  I, personally, am inclined to think we should focus our attention primarily on a basic structure.

My initial random thoughts:  Seven Branches of Government - 1) Internal Executive Branch, 2) External Executive Branch, 3) Judicial Branch, 4) Legislative Branch, 5) Economic Branch, 6) Community's Branch, and 7) Finalizing Branch.

[Please see the respective numbers below for the roles to be played by the Regent of each branch listed directly above.]

1) IEB - handles the matters involving writings/upholding of law within the nation, reviewing/confirming standards of living,
2) EEB - handles the matters involving the nation's interaction with foreign governents, defense,
3) JB - settles civilian court/law, upholds the legal systems, provides the truth to the people: pros AND CONS,
4) LB - reviews initial amendments/bills/laws (A/B/L) to be passed, establishes policies (includ. foreign), provides 1/5 of ruling in court rulings,
5) EB - provides required vote of approval for any A/B/L drawing from Treasury.
6) CB - a 3rd vote of approval on behalf of the people to carry forward a A/B/L, handles citizens' allegiances, relevant background info, tracks/ensures 100% voting, national health and fitness standard, education, monitoring standard of living,
7) FB - a 3rd vote of approval on behalf of the people to carry forward a A/B/L, redundant of the Community's Branch and that is its primary function - to act in the best interest of the people.

For certain A/B/L's to pass, I'm thinking three votes to pass, four for immediate implementation even if it makes it without Economic Branch's approval, while having to draw from Treasury (holding the CB and FB accountable).  In theory, every branch should be able to have its influential pull over its own branch by-passed with... 5? votes from other branches, except in matters of war and decisions of such, where 6 votes are required to have a drastic measure to take effect (if the EEB is not in support, otherwise its vote would constitute as 3 votes)...  Yeah, it's really not out of the brainstorming stages yet, but I thought I'd put it out there for discussion, as I see it being a Central Issue and I did my best to stay on topic. 

We require a lot of work and I had some thoughts in regards to money/currency, establishing economic security, government programs for the elderly, (medically/mentally) ill, families with children, salaries/compensation for elected officials, more effective/efficient/appropriate education system, as well as new structure in careers and subsequent requirements for each field, I am kind of toying with the idea of community service programs for citizens of all ages - appropriate compensation - effects to economy/morale - long-term effects.

It probably seems like it will be a nightmare due to excessive processes and complex base structures, but I think something along these lines would prove to be quite successful for many reasons.  A building with a strong, sound, reinforced foundation allows room for undetermined design structures, not to mention simplicity later on, due to covered bases on the ground floor.

Anywho, I'll give it some thought when I have some free time.  I'd love this to be shot down for an obvious oversight on my part, but more importantly... I'd love to hear any thoughts any of you might've had that can replace/improve/compliment a couple of other strings of thought I haven't yet explored.  I ought to do some research first, but I don't want to taint any of my ideas by revisiting existing influences and I urge you all to do the same. 

Have a winning day, my people!  Make today the best day of your life and try to make all that follow even better.
Solo, the one and only.

"I keep my ideals, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart."-- Anne Frank (1929-45), German Jewish refugee, diarist, captured and sent to concentration camp.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #20 on: Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 01:05 »

Me, me, me! ;D I am the one to be the first Mogul of the United Gay and Lesbian Emirates of the Coral Sea, Atlantic an Pacific! In doubt, my opinion is the only correct one! ;D

Ok, jokes put aside: Yes, we will have to start from the scratch. Will we personally ever meet a down in the independent gay country? I don't know - our ressources are very humble, and the way is stony. At least, we can initiate a steady process to the gay state and contribute our share to this tremendous task - when others follow, we may actually succeed. I also do not know the right way, perhapts the "right way" even does not exist at all. We will need both the pioneers ready to settle in tents were the pepper grows, and individuals in backround to support the process financially, legally and logistically. For sure, any kind of premature "independence declarations" would be rather contra-productive. It's always better to create facts before starting any de-jura discussions.

Money will be needed as well, and the way to make money grow. It's sad, but without money we will not be able to move even a single individual to the said strip of land, should we ever make decision to settle somewhere. Money will be needed for legal aquisition of the land, building infrastructure and initiating economic developement. Hopefully, some wealthy individuals will dare and invest in the local economy out of "national solidarity". The real difficulty will be to make the gay settlement an attractive place for GLBT people to live in - not just because of ideology, but out of really enhanced live quality. Safety, medical supply and jobs opportunities will be crucial parts of our way to successfull self-determination. One can see the current policy of the US-government critically, but if we could achieve US-standards in economy and social security, our (at the moment hypothetical) gay state would be not such a bad place to live in.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Gunnar

  • Guest
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #19 on: Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 21:13 »

Just as a reminder, guys: We are not to discuss US policy here. This is about a gay republic, which we dreaming of. A dream we all want to come true. To compare this our dream with a Federation of States like the US, is nothing but misleading. As some of the topics I watch here. The "Knowledge is Power" thingy usually works, that's true. And I state here usually. Can this be the case for the Gay Republic also? Well, who is the one with the very knowledge how to govern a gay country successfully? Any Idea?
I want to point out here, that we have to start from the scratch again.

Solo

  • A One-Man Show...
  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 28
  • * Gay Super Hero *
    • Scribblings of a Madman...
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #18 on: Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 05:03 »

Hmm...   I can't agree with you, Shil.  Our system of checks and balances has NOT caused our government to completely collapse in the past two centuries, which is no great accomplishment, but to say it's "worked" is where you lose me.  What I find ridiculous is how governments don't converse more freely about what programs and systems that are in place have proven to be most effective, then impliment those practices in their respective nations.  Knowledge is power and when you share power you aren't weighed down with pressure anymore than anyone else and obstacles are easier to overcome as a collective.

I would have to call it a Fu*ked up government, thats what.

Personally I like Checks and Balances... The US is not perfect.. Infact far from it.. But our system of checks and balances has worked for a couple of hundred years and hopefully will work for a couple of hundred more.

Personally I quit the GLK because of the politics... I am glad now I did. Cause even in the US the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can be removed. It rarely if ever happens or happened... But its possible.

Onwards,
Solo, the one and only.

"I keep my ideals, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart."-- Anne Frank (1929-45), German Jewish refugee, diarist, captured and sent to concentration camp.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #17 on: Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 06:06 »

I would like to come back to one of the issues, brought up by Feral: Do gay people need a government at all and if "yes", so why? I think this central question still remains unanswered. Though my personal opinion is that any government is not needed until a territory is there to be governed, I cannot deny that there is certain desire from many people to have the government established right now.

How else one could explain the magic attraction of the GLK and Jaix's Gay Commonwealth Kingdom to so many people? Obviously there are some wants to be stilled. But what exactly are these wants? Can we analize the reasons why our people tend to  join non-territorial "countries", compose "gay constitutions", elect "parliaments" and appoint kings and ministers? Why do they readily spend not little amounts of money for practically useless passports, issue gay stamps and are proudly pleadging allegiance to people they never heard about before?

The phenomenon can not be explained by a latent devotion to "role playing games" only. Sure, some of the leading people of that organizations (guess, who!) seem to be extremly fond of the ancient sounding titles and royal glory, but the mass must have different reasons. Is there a wish for protection, be it solely a kind of spiritual sanctuary among equals? Is there a wish for a "national identity", a cultural and spiritual homeland for our people, who to often feel like "aliens" among "normals"? Can we grant this wish by simple setting up a gay version of a Hammuraby Codex or is the task much more complex? Do we possibly need a National Library and the National Museum of Arts, maybe even some kind of a spiritual leader (a queer Mahatma or a queer Dalai Lama)? If yes, who of the world's GLBT community could take such a burden on his/her shoulders?

Too many questions unanswered...
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Gunnar

  • Guest
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #16 on: Wed, Jul 13, 2005, 14:30 »

There is no doubt, that I don't like the policy of the GLK. But I want to be fair at all, and the quote below can easily be misleading.




The problem is of a different nature, in my eyes. All GLK's officials, except Dale and Bill, can be removed from their posts by an ordinance of Dale (prepared by the most honorable chief unjustice himselfe, of course). The Lord Protector himself can be dismissed without any consultations with the parliament, if Bill dislikes his actions one day. And Lord Protector has the legal power to stop ANY decision of the Parliament (they even cannot meet without his approval), the legislation is controlled by Bill through the LP as well.
The post  of the Lord Protector has not been created be the wanna-be King Dale Parker Anderson. This post reminds of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell - to make it pretty clear, that this King can be removed easily, if needed. As well as the chief justice.

What next? Will this ever happen? This remains to be seen. On a personal note, I doubt it.

 But it is beyond any doubt, that said chief justice is offending american law, by doing what it is believed to be his job in the GLK.
I have joined the GLK after knowing that there is something rotten in Denmark. I have heard about this Irregularities elsewhere, from a person I trust.
The main point is, in my opinion, not the form of government. It is the fact, that the GLK is based on lies. And this destroys the credibitility of any government. This is the true danger not only for the GLK, but for the gay community as a whole.

But another topic to be included here:

We are tlking too much about the GLK stuff. Yes, the GLK is part of our history, but I do think that there need to be much more concerns on the GR than the GLK.

Think about it.

Regards,

Gunnar
« Last Edit: Wed, Jul 13, 2005, 14:33 by Gunnar »

Shil_Andrachis

  • Forum member
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #15 on: Wed, Jul 13, 2005, 12:56 »

I would have to call it a Fu*ked up government, thats what.

Personally I like Checks and Balances... The US is not perfect.. Infact far from it.. But our system of checks and balances has worked for a couple of hundred years and hopefully will work for a couple of hundred more.

Personally I quit the GLK because of the politics... I am glad now I did. Cause even in the US the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can be removed. It rarely if ever happens or happened... But its possible.

Onwards,

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #14 on: Tue, Jul 12, 2005, 16:18 »

The necessety of a formal assent of the head of state to a law act issued by the parliament is a very common instrument to ensure steady and rightfull legislation. Of course, the head of state must have serious LEGAL concerns (which he/she has to explain) if he/she is inclined to refuse the signing o the document. Indeed, in the most countries which political structures is known to me, this is the case. Therefore the simple fact that a new law act requires the consent of the King or the Lord Protector does not make the GLK automatically a dictatorship.

The problem is of a different nature, in my eyes. All GLK's officials, except Dale and Bill, can be removed from their posts by an ordinance of Dale (prepared by the most honorable chief unjustice himselfe, of course). The Lord Protector himself can be dismissed without any consultations with the parliament, if Bill dislikes his actions one day. And Lord Protector has the legal power to stop ANY decision of the Parliament (they even cannot meet without his approval), the legislation is controlled by Bill through the LP as well. Bill also is the owner of the website and of the Yahoo Group, he directly controls the assets and decides who will be the citizen and who will be not. And, Bill is the one who cannot be removed from his office even if EVERY citizen shall desire him to be dismissed. Now, tell me what kind of state this shall be? Even in the case that Bill shall prove to be most honorable man free of any false intentions (hm, hm...) the structure of state's powers is most unhealthy...

You see, even a man with sharp mind and good intentions tends to make mistakes. It is absolutely normal, as we ALL are just humans with our good and bad qualities. To make any society and organization function, shared responsibilities and clear structures are of a great importance. Many sharp mindes are better than just few and consultations mostly help to make the better decision. Even if the majority is not always in posession of the final truth, nobody has the right to oppress people because he is believing himself to be a "greate statesman".
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Shil_Andrachis

  • Forum member
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #13 on: Tue, Jul 12, 2005, 03:06 »

A dictatorship with a puppet king... Though even in the US the President has the right to VETO something but the US congress can still pass that bill if it still wishes.. The question is... Is this how the GLK works or when the LP gives a refusal to consent is it automatically denied and can not be passed at all. That is the question.   ???

~~ Joshua


If there is a King, a Queen or an Emperor - these are titles. Important is what really is done there. And the closest description I know of for now, is the oligarchy, wich means that a few rule. Yes, there is a (shadow) parliament in the GLK, but do they have a say there? I don't think so. All bills passing the Assembly (oops Parliament) are proposals only and have to be approved by the Lord Protector, who may or may not give his consent - this is at the LP's discretion. He always can (and recently did) deny his consent. Dale himself is supposed to be the ruler, but he has given all administrative and governmental power to the LP. Now, what is the GLK??

Gunnar

  • Guest
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #12 on: Mon, May 09, 2005, 17:44 »

If there is a King, a Queen or an Emperor - these are titles. Important is what really is done there. And the closest description I know of for now, is the oligarchy, wich means that a few rule. Yes, there is a (shadow) parliament in the GLK, but do they have a say there? I don't think so. All bills passing the Assembly (oops Parliament) are proposals only and have to be approved by the Lord Protector, who may or may not give his consent - this is at the LP's discretion. He always can (and recently did) deny his consent. Dale himself is supposed to be the ruler, but he has given all administrative and governmental power to the LP. Now, what is the GLK??

Vizier

  • Vizier, Your WebMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 65
  • Bok-bok-bok!
    • Vizier's Homepage
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #11 on: Sun, May 08, 2005, 18:20 »

Also, the notations of Queen Elizabeth's powers are de facto incorrect. While she is largely a figure head, she does retain the power and right under the UK constitution to dismiss parliament in times of crisis and assume full control, as the king of Nepal also recently did. This was last observed in the UK during World War II. (A little historical research goes a long way sometimes.)

My biggest beef with the GLK is the idea that a Kingdom can have an "Imperial Highness" as figurehead leader. An empire is always, without exception, headed by an emperor, not a king, just as conversely, a kingdom is always headed by a king except during periods of regency. A king is outranked by an emperor in the scheme of things. Example: The kings of Wuerttemberg, Saxony, Baden, Prussia and other German states were all subjects of and owed fealty to the Emperor of Germany during that empire. These are not "silly rules" anyone can make up as they go along, but rather based on tradition, heraldic and chivalric norms and principles that have existed for several thousand years.

No upstart little outfit like the GLK has, in my and many others' opinion, the right or should have the bad taste and audacity to simply "make up their own rules" as they plod along.This is contradictory and contraindicated by simple logic and, IMHO, makes that entire organization subject to spoofing and ridicule. As mentioned, there are rules that apply to nobility. Having several titled nobles in this organization (with real, long, pedigreed titles, not ones grasped out of thin air and made up "a la Napoleon Bonaparte"), we do know the proper etiquette and rules and simply "making them up as you go" (which seems to be the GLK's basic mode of operation) is not making any friends for them in the rest of the (real) world.Those of us here who do have bona fide titles have not used them, nor proposed a monarchy or any derivation thereof, or upheld the idea of a class-based society (such as that shaking out in the GLK) for good reason; our personal heritage and titles are not things that have anything to do with who we are in terms of this organization.

Sorry to vent, but in my eyes, the entire idea of an GLBT nation, which the GLK might have had a slim chance at becoming, was doomed themoment the first few decided to make it a "kingdom." A very poor and romantically rather than practically and realistically based choice, I feel.
Having recently escaped the bowels of East Germany, I remain

VIZIER, your exalted yet most humble WebMaster

Feral

  • Official Flying Monkey Smiter
  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 262
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #10 on: Tue, May 03, 2005, 06:57 »

To the degree that the Gay Kingdom Act is derived from the Norfolk Island Act (and that is a very significant degree), the Gay Kingdom is most assuredly a Constitutional Monarchy.

It is important to note that while the Gay Kingdom actually has a separate constitution, the Gay Kingdom Act is the kingdom's main contituting document. All of the powers of the monarchy are either expressly stated in the Act, inferred by the Act in denying them to the Parliament, or (as is too often the case) implied by comparison with the Norfolk Island Act. The revision of September 25 was not entirely helpful. Several important sections of the Act appear to have been deleted hastily and in error.
Stonewall was a riot.

Gunnar

  • Guest
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #9 on: Tue, May 03, 2005, 05:35 »

I quote message #2030 of the gaykingdom group here:
Quote
A good basic explanation on forms of government is here:  "Politics and Political Science"

--------
Under monarchies he says:

"To be classified as a monarchy, a government must have some kind of royal family that inherits their position of power. Different types of
monarchs exist. A monarchy may be a limited monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, or an absolute monarchy.

A limited monarchy is one in which the royalty have only ceremonial powers. An example of this is in the United Kingdom. While Queen Elizabeth is considered the queen, she has no authority in lawmaking and does not deal with the parliament. A limited monarchy merely has a royal family for ceremonies and in keeping with tradition.

The second type of monarchy is a constitutional monarchy. In this form of monarchy, the monarch has powers granted to him/her by the country’s constitution. An example of this form of monarchy is in Sweden. Here, the monarch can only use powers granted in the country’s constitution.

The third and final type of monarchy is an absolute monarchy. In an absolute monarchy, the monarchy has supreme and absolute authority to do
what it wishes. An example of this occurs in the country of Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, the royal family can enforce any law it wishes- no matter how bad it could be for the country. Absolute monarchies are often very oppressive to its people. For example, Saudi Arabia has very strict laws that have been put in place by the royal family. The people living in the country have no voice in an absolute monarchy."
--------
Under republics, he writes:

"A republic is any government that does not have a monarch. Republics are also divided into three classes. A republic can be classified as a dictatorship, an oligarchy, or a democracy.

A dictatorship is a government ruled by one commander. An example of this is Iraq. Saddam Hussein is [Note: now "was"] the dictator of Iraq. Whatever he decides becomes law. Dictatorships are similar to absolute monarchies in that they are very oppressive to the people of the country. The major difference between the two is that absolute monarchies are families inheriting their power while dictatorships often result from military takeovers or from an elected official who refuses to step down from his elected office.

The second type of republic is an oligarchy. An oligarchy is a country ruled by the few. An example of this was in South Africa during Apartheid. During Apartheid, the white population, which was about 25% of the entire country’s population, commanded the power and the majority of the wealth of South Africa. At this time, blacks were not allowed to be involved in the political process and were forced to live only in certain areas. Apartheid has now been eliminated in South Africa, and the black majority now has more control over the political process and the government.

The final type of republic is a democracy, which is what most consider the United States to be. In a democracy, it is rule by the majority. This rule by the majority takes place by voting and electing officials. The people of the country elect officials who hold similar views to their own to represent them."
--------

So I suggest you read this web page, google on things like "constitutional monarchy" and "forms of government" then you can decide for yourself where the GLK lies. But officially it is and will remain a "Constitutional Monarchy".

Just to explain what we are talking about. Is - or even was - the GLK a constutional monarchy? Could that have been the case? It is possible - I don't know enough about the past of the Gay Kingdom.
But as for now, it seems to be not. It appears more as an oligarchy than as a monarchy. There is someone they call king, but this "King" has given all his powers to the Lord Protector. So he makes the decisions. But he hides behind the so-called king, he says he has no power and is only an advisor to the king. I still don't know why the chief justice signs the "Gayzette" and not the Lord Protector.
But back to the Issue: As quoted here in the Forum, Joe Grande once said in the public, that the gaykingdom is nothing less but a democracy. I did not believe that earlier. Joe Grande also stated that the former Assembly - now the "Parliament" are nothing but advisors.
Advisors. Hmmm. The "Privy Council" consists of (appointed) advisors to the King also. Said King has given all powers to the already mentioned Lord Protector, which is a member of the "privy" council. Does the Advisor of the king now rule - in fact - the country? Or is there something else?
I don't know.
But it is very likely, that none of the descriptions quoted does really fit the GLK.
Now, what do YOU think?
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up