The answer probably depends on whether a souvereign gay entity will be established, or not. A gay state designed as a modern society would need an entire framework of legislation, with threshold values for dangerous immissions, with detailed penalties for theft, cheque fraud, fire-raising and the like. Independently, an ethical code or set of conventions must exist - to give an individual an ethical guildance. Such an ethical code would be of greate use also for any isolated gay individual, who is subject of "heterosexual" laws in his country of residence.
We have to contemplate three scenarios.
The first is the absence of a gay independent State,and the total lack of previous experience in statehood and statecraft.This corresponds to the present times in which we are living.
The second scenario,which would have to be contemplated already in some future time when we would have an independent State of our own,
would be its downfall.Either for general historical reasons,as happens to heterosexual States.Or for reasons having to do with our eventual incapacity to tender to our own particular demographic situation.Whatever we establish as a State structure will not be above what happened
to previous such structures.We are no better than heterosexuals in that respect.And we have particular problems which heterosexuals don`t have,and for which there exist no real historical experience.
The third scenario would be a "Vichy" gay State,having become a puppet of some hethro Empire or regime,no longer representing our interests,
and using in fact its name and apparatus to undermine the said interests.
In those three scenarios,sovereignty has to find some repository other than a State.There is nothing extraordinnary in that.The Poles did it during WWII.France`s general De Gaulle proceeded on similar lines after the defeat of his country in 1940.The Poles as a group,or general De Gaulle as an individual,never accepted foreign domination.The normal repository of gay sovereignty in the absence of a State,if we were better organized politically,would have been the gay people itself.We will probably have to rest content with the individual,because it`s only to the efforts of the individual that we ow our existence.The individual cannot represent the will of the people.But he can represent its interests,provided that the said interests are well defined.And from that point on,he can evolve a course of action and a code of conduct.Just read the War Memories of
general De Gaulle,and this should be perfectly clear.
A gay code of political conduct,besides defining the distinct interests of the gay people,has little to invent.Mostly,it can borrow from historical examples and political science.Machiavelli is an excellent author for that matter: read his book "The Prince".So is de Gaulle with his War Memories.
Another excellent author on Statecraft is Henry Kissinger,with his book titled "Diplomacy".Such is the life of a gay separatist: it consists merely in studying,in order to know in detail how heterosexual organized societies function and interact.
K6