Of course,we are debating here theoretically about a gay independent State.Which doesn`t exist at the moment.In the absence of a gay State,there is no corresponding citizenship. There is only the status of gay,if ever some gay groups did developped it in a formal way. [..]
This is certainly true. We have extensely discussed the issue of being gay, and had to admitt that there are very differing views on
"Who is gay". As this linguistic controversies cannot be arbitrarily decided by few individuals or even by the gay state per decret, all the administration of the future gay souvereign entity can do is to decide who is either
gay citizen or
gay national (and is therefore under protection of the gay state), and who is definitely non of those 2 categories. A person can become
citizen solely by formal naturalization performed by authorized state officers, and certainly not against his/her will. Being a
gay national means that the person belongs to the gay people and falls into the spere of interests of the gay state, dispite the formal naturalization could not be accomplished yet by some or other reason. It would be only fair to regard any homosexual person as
gay national, unless the person explicitely declares that he/she does not wish to be regarded as such. This approach is very practical, as it would give the gay state the moral right to act on behalf of any homosexual individual without any further paperwork, and at the same time recognize the personal right of self-determination.
One problem sticks at the discussion, and this time the problem linguistics. If we are to become
one people, we should decide which term we use to describe us as a people
with one word? I am thinking of the dilemma of "gay and lesbian", "queer", "LGBT" and "gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people" - over short or long time it becomes pretty tedious to use the appropriate full form in a discussion or a legal document. It would be extremely usefull to find
one linguistic construct to encompass all the categories we are meaning, without hurting the feelings of any of the involved groups. Actually, initiall the word "gay" seems to have been was used to describe
all forms of homosexuals (male and female), while a "lesb" was of the same level as a "catamite". How comes we are talking of "gay men" and "lesbians" now? The word "queer" is nowadays used for the same purpose as "gay" long time before, but some cautious minds are ironasing already that times of "queer men" and "lesbians" are coming soon.

So how shall we proceed in future? Personally I am inclined to suggest the use of the word "gay" encompassing prevalently homosexual men and women as well as transgenders associating themeselves with our culture, therefore "gay state" and "gay homeland" being applied for all the described groups. Of course we could start using the word "queer" instead, but isn't it a bit too arbitrarily used for any slight sexual diviance as well? I am thinking of prevalently heterosexual beings who use to cloth and talk in what they think is a "gay manner", and even have now and then a short homosexual "affair". Nothing be said against this, but this "metrosexual" thing is not exactly what we have in mind when we are talking about the gay culture and gay identity. So what now? It would be a greate help if some lesbians would let us know, whether they are fine with the integrative use of "gay" or whether they feel discriminated against by this.
[..] Political maturity is not something we can require from a gay yet,though we might try to develop it among gays by way of political education.In any case,it remains possible that individuals who haven`t matured quickly all by themselves,and before a separatist gay organization can come in existence in order to educate them politically,won`t have the means to be gay. [..] Political maturity,for the time being,is only for the cadres of some eventual gay separatist movement.Once a gay State is in existence,yes we could have a general civic education for all gay immigrants before they become citizens. [..]
What I had in mind by suggesting the necessity of "political maturity" for citizens was not a particular political belief, but rather the ability to make funded decisions. A person is free to refuse any particular theories, but he or she must know these theories. The citizen can be expected to know how to read and write, know basic history of the mankind and the history of gay movement in particular. The knowledge of different state systems, basic economic and political theories, as well as a minimum knowledge of mathematics and natural sciences shall be made compulsory for anyone desiring to participate in political process. I am not talking about high matematics and extensive studies of greek philosophy, simply about a minimum set of knowledge. One may argue that such a demand would unjustifiably discriminate against those who come from "third world" countries, but I had recently made the experience that even many people from the "industrialized world" are not really informed about how the world functions. It would therefore be in our all interest to offer compulsory curses for those who fail to pas the basic examinations. As far as our knowledge of gay history is concerned, I am most sure that we all will have to take a cours or two to close our education gaps -- there are actually only very few scholars who have an advanced knowledge of this subject.
The education of potential political elites is a quite another topic. Though I am highly impressed by the French approach (nurturing of all the elites in one
École), I at the same time dislike the potential danger of totalitarian education. We should avoid monocultures on the field of education, therefore a couple of good schools of various olitical coleur should be accepted as explicitely welcome. The state can impose certain requirements for qualification of its officers, however - this would ensure efficiency of the state apparatus. We should generally not confuse politics and administration - they are pretty
different things. Whereas the administration and justice should be the domain of professionals, the field of politics does not require extendedl knowledges - the basic education and common sense are everything one needs. I suggest therefore that the future gay state be a mixture of democracy and meritocracy - the professionals on each field must have the possibility to withhold the politicians from entirely stupid decisions.
The citizens of a gay State should know at least a couple of foreign languages.That greatly facilitates relations in a multicultural environment.You get an idea on how someone else thinks or dreams when you master his linguistic mean of communication.
The experiences in Netherlands show, that the majority of the population can learn one or two foreing languages without further difficulties. It is a good idea to encourage people to learn foreign languages, especially in a multilingual society. With appropriate education programs we could both promote linguistic skills of our people and supply a good part of the population with jobs in this sector.