GLR News and Information > Geography, Economy & GLR Politics

Gay Legislation

<< < (2/4) > >>

Frozen19:
I feel it is wrong to exclude straights from the republic.
Reasons:
1 Can result in obvious aggresion from tolerant nations
2 Can scare away possible immigrants who have gay supportive family and friends
3 Gay parents would not immigrate in order to stay w/ children
4 Uneeded tension in political alliances
5 Over time can lead to mass hysteria  and fear towards straight indiduals
I might mention that a bicameral legislature of which one section is purely glbt can prevent the loss of gay control in govt.

Mogul:
Re: Marriage Issue (repost from here)

Marriage should be a simple matter of notification, received by any religious or governmental authorities. The only reason why governments are insisting on "licensing" marriages is their intention to grant significant privilegies to long-term stable relationships, as opposed to promisquity and casual mating.

"Legal marriage" offers solid benefits in most societies dominated by the three abrahamic religions. Married individuals usually pay lower income taxes, lower to no inheritance taxes, enjoy immigration privilegies and often are the only ones entitled to adopt children (or get professional assistance in making some). Thus it is only prudent that Gays living in such countries shall seek equal access to legal privilegies granted to "legally married" couples.

This does not mean, of course, that marriage is per se an institution worth of granting such extensive special rights, or, more accurately put, of denying those rights to not-married individuals.

There are a couple of genuine special rights which originate from the fact that two or more people are living under the same roof in a common houshold. It is only just that these people can present a joint tax declaration, provided they really have a joint account and the money is actually shared between them. It is also perfectly prudent that these domestic partners can inherit the dwelling where they live together before one of them dies. There is little reason, however, to grant special tax reliefs on large fortunes to persons who were "married" on paper only.

If I were in a position to set up the legislation for the Gay homeland, I would suggest a simple notification procedure. The clerk in the office looks up whether the individuals in question are not already married to someone else, takes the administrative fee and makes a notice in the civil registry. A few additional rights might be granted to them (e.g. the right not to testify against the partner in a criminal suit etc). For anything else, the legislation shall make no difference between married and non-married partners. A single man living with his dependent mother shall be treated no different from a "double-income no kids" married couple - in both cases, the shared income should be submitted to the fiscus for joint taxation.

Mogul:
I would suggest we make a difference between the three catogories of people who will somehow submit themselves to the legal system of the Gay State: "Citizens", "Affiliates" and "Permanent Residents".

Permanent Residents would be those who legally live on the territory controlled by the Gay State, independently of them being Gay or straight. These persons, being non-citizens, should have no rights with regard to the higher political institutions of the State (e.g. election rights for the parliament, government or courts of justice). In my view, however, they should be permitted to participate in communal politics, e.g. have the right to participate in elections to the city council or at least to form a "non-citizen board" which should have some competencies within the city council.
Affiliation might be an option offered to Gays in Diaspora -- they would instantly become subjects to the Gay State, previous to the more difficult and demanding process of becoming a full citizen. Affiliates could have their elected local boards, which in cooperation with officials of the Gay State will take care of Gay politics in diasporic communities (and only there). These communal boards might even wish to create some informal networks in "opposition" to the State, but these networks should best remain informal, as far as the Gay State is concerned.
Citizenship involves much more than a permanent residency or affiliation status. Every Gay should be entitled to become an affiliate or a permanent resident, even some straights would perfectly fit into the gay society as residents. But being a citizen implies that a person by free pieces is assuming the obligation to serve the state and, in case of necessity, to defend this state and its dependants. The more in duties first makes the person than eligible to the more in political rights. In my perception, the citizenship in the Gay State would be slightly different from the citizenship status in any "conventional" country. In any "conventional" state people are born into the citizenship "involuntarily" (and indeed, rather arbitrarily), such classical citizenship embraces all kinds of persons, independently from their willingness and readiness to affiliate with this state. I would propose that the Gay State establishes being Gay though as a necessary, but not a sufficient requirement. To become citizen, the affiliate of the Gay State should fullfill some additional criterions, e.g. learn some history and pollitics of Gay people, and substantially contribute to the further developement of the Gay State (military/civil service etc.).


--- Quote from: Feral on Sat, May 05, 2007, 18:47 ---I disagree slightly with Mogul on the matter of potential straight citizenship. I see no reason why such a thing cannot be earned. If a straight person is willing to assimilate into Gay culture there is no pressing reason to deny that person the benefits of being a full member of society.
--- End quote ---

Basically, my opposition to granting citizenship to straight individuals is founding in the fear that it would incite more unrest among straight residents than it would calm. As long as it is crystall clear for any straight permanent resident that he/she is not eligible for the [Gay] citizenship in principle, there is little cause for discord - straight is straight, and Gay is Gay. The very moment the first straight person will be permitted to "qualify" himself for the citizenship, there will be an uproar among the straight-born children of Gays, who would with full reason question why some straight people are apparently regarded more equal than others. The discussion in the society will then predictably lead to the eradication of every discrimination against straight people in the regulations for obtaining the citizenship, since all the parents would naturally wish their non-gay kids become citizens, too -- independently from their sexual orientation. And voila, in a couple of generations we will have the kind of a state which will mostly care about those who are "native" to its territory. We simply can't afford equal rights with regard on obtaining the citizenship status -- if at all, I solely can imagine that a straight person may be granted citizenship honoris causa, in a somewhat unusual step of acknowledgement for his/her exceptional merits. What kind of regulations do you have in mind, Feral? 


--- Quote from: Feral on Sat, May 05, 2007, 18:47 ---The word 'homocracy' is one way of encapsulating what we propose, yes. I generally think of it in terms of 'self-governance' though.
--- End quote ---

Homocracy is, of course, the tongue-in-cheek way to describe the political ambition of the State in question. There are good ideological reasons why "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" choose to include "socialist" in its name, and why the "Islamic Republic of Iran" included "islamic" in its. But of course, "Dictatorship of the proletariat", "Rule of God" and "Gay self-rule" do say very little about the actual (technical) regulations within the State apparatus. Gay separatists already have given birth to a variety of Gay entities ranging from a "two-king constitutional monarchy", to a "parallel republic", thus we of course shall consider what kind of known government systems might serve us best. Whatever the name, there are a number of principles which seem to be very promising for good governance, a few to mention:


* Separation of powers: legislative, executive and judicative shall be separated;
* Checks and Ballances: mutual control of the powers;
* Meritocracy: where necessary, special qualifications shall be required;
* Majority rule: democratic structures among peers;
* Accountability: the Government shall be kept accountable for its actions;
* Subsidiarity: the superior authority shall not try to regulate issues which can be regulated by a subordinate authority or a citizen as well;

Now depending on the personal strength of the entity, and the tasks it is expected to fulfill, the governing structures can be more or less complicated. It is essential that a) every public official (from little immigration clerk to the president) can be removed in case of bad management, and b) there are instruments ensuring such incidents remain a rare necessity. An interesting solution is a "nobility republic", though I do not know whether this term would serve us well -- who shall determine the "nobility", after all? Probably the expression "qualified citizenship" might serve us better -- in the meaning, that one must first earn the citizenship of the Gay State, as Feral proposes.


--- Quote from: Athrael on Sat, May 05, 2007, 09:05 ---How to does one "demonstrate" that they are gay? I suppose that could lead to some rather interesting imagery, however I imagine there are ways to decide based on other factors so not just anyone can claim gay to reap the rewards.
--- End quote ---

No, the immigration clerks will be not required to test the gayness of an applican first! =))  The written declaration shall suffice, plus all the necessary additional steps aiming to increase political maturity of a would-be citizen, plus the necessary military/civil cervice. The practical duties wouldl make any "acting" by a straight person highly unprobable, and in case of a fraud the citizenship still may be revoked.

Feral:
The word 'homocracy' is one way of encapsulating what we propose, yes. I generally think of it in terms of 'self-governance' though. There just aren't all that many straight people who could conceivably fall into the category of "self" when the word 'self' is being used to refer to Gays. There are no straight Gay people. I do not propose to create a government to be imposed upon straights -- they do a fine job of creating their own governments. Self-government works just fine for the straights and I am sure that it will work just fine for us as well. This is not to say that it will inevitably work well. Government rarely works well for anyone.

As for 'demonstrating' that one is Gay -- I am generally satisfied with a statement to that effect. It has been my experience that straight people are never shy about being straight (nor should they be). Should someone falsely claim to be Gay for some reason... that would be a simple matter of fraud. Fraud sometimes happens in immigration matters.

I disagree slightly with Mogul on the matter of potential straight citizenship. I see no reason why such a thing cannot be earned. If a straight person is willing to assimilate into Gay culture there is no pressing reason to deny that person the benefits of being a full member of society. I can imagine such a thing -- after all, being straight is hardly the most interesting thing about many of them -- but I do not pretend that there will be so very many straights willing to attempt it (or able to succeed) that this is more than an academic question.

Citizenship in the Gay state ought to be earned by everyone. That it is easier for a Gay person to be Gay than it is for a straight person is, I think, obvious. I would question the sense of a straight person that wished to assimilate into Gay society (just as I question the sense of the many Gays who purport to do the same thing in straight society). A lack of sense is not, I think, a reasonable disqualification for citizenship though.

Athrael:
Homocracy? A whole bunch of queens fighting for the crown????  :=V

Duel citizenship automatically granted to those who can demonstrate they are gay. Meaning those who are registered as "gay" (GLBT) through the Office of Citizenship Matters or what ever you want to call it are given duel citizenship. Should cover not only homeland residence but those who are dispersed around the globe as well.

How to does one "demonstrate" that they are gay? I suppose that could lead to some rather interesting imagery, however I imagine there are ways to decide based on other factors so not just anyone can claim gay to reap the rewards.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page