Sorry for non-galantly cutting off your comment, Jaixs.
The thread was initially intended as a kind of anouncement, not directly as an invitation for discussion - I simply forgot to lock the topic after my last post.
But we of course are happy to have a talk about the GLR's here - you are heartly invited!
Well, if there is a need in a moral leadership, why not grant it to the people? Whether as a President, a Lama, a king or a simple chieftain - these are but words describing an institution. A non-hereditary monarchy or duarchy with an elected leadership might be contemplated as a form of a tribal democracy - as long as citizens have a real possibility to determine the actual politics, it's not overly offensive.
What we must be clear of, is the structure of powers in the proposed gay state and the diversification of responsibilities. Good when the king is a noble guy who would not abuse his rank - but even better when the istitution itself is healthy and the person in charge is not the matter of rise or fall of the entire nation. In the internet, the owner of the "governmental" website is sometimes like the absolute monarch - he can rule as he wishes. Good if the person posesses some grips and integrity, woe if not! This is not an acceptable condition, and a state-like entity must find its manifestation in the real world as well - by taking an office and setting up the legal framework.
To come to the nature of relations between the GLR & the GLCK... Well, it's probably a bit too early to talk about these entities as if they were mighty institutions in need of large diplomatic corps.
For the first, we shall agree that we all pursue the same goal by slightly different means, and if we would manage to make the first steps towards the gay state, we might support each other while moving - we anyway have the same route. Or like left and right hand of the same body - each has his use.