Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7EBB12D75C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cY8PVB_jxkRc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A96812D771 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id h1so26058229lbj.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DDaTECWMIF3hTUCX/KQk7IMQxXdlVRUcUgC2ZwrHZsI=; b=d8Proa18yJvkYVM/SuRglFIdVYYwQB6mZl/dfF/IM1t5xDh/7Z4siJaX0gm4/wW+wY akYuR6dA/R6re36STBPk0YgMLXFdwb/8DyFndAsuvfHl36JGH05+MFLETyovdFmbaFgU IvoUxmHsr6EyaUhwC9+7ceJaoCtlgrRKsx/6Ge/zrJHeyDOpsMNSlN+uacn3NKYEKE2G GyzD4Eej4YMKOvGTw5GNZ931pkdhnXnQKssm/wBigStfJV67taUJnRpX3Vcu3eTPMrHr ujUXKmYi1rzMDQZyLjZ7dlLY3zG+sNWhqPfdWSbEU1T9YqC7WesbhMqtkdwEEU91829o 1UMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DDaTECWMIF3hTUCX/KQk7IMQxXdlVRUcUgC2ZwrHZsI=; b=lq5plZPeAkZkjpIKGRZfy8nRhs3eRv1DD9x4QDIWQgvDmwS2jLewHCe+TIP9peXVEm 2cDSH5bRI0T+HeLvsrk91fWYjiDTS1p5RLOpOMsmoan08QxNloiBS3QEOpjFWQIjd8Gn c11hwyV3ju/eTzbJ8zS5O301LjgUDVsoSheFf4O3GjU1t6oPfOfrpFdHquECsRNIJRNU jNXUN55Og0r0JPJ4dnbD5CW55uBVQQj2NtvwHZiMZLcCrxmjTBA39nelcwj350dZyj8V cvjRcbOueM1dLTz+GSvtLgv6SmzseGGZ8mJKk8bky0hPofpsTQqMP/7M0D9wR/l9whzw bGBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJU899Rvv24ZmNgcp+1qLq4gvCTkvevMqQIlsC0A8alF3XNUxQmib2BrBFUSEqWqS3wkZ0aMW7j1XJ+5g==
X-Received: by 10.112.169.8 with SMTP id aa8mr3180221lbc.110.1464280636152; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <656886491.844659.1464279532857.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <1BA2C633-3B80-462D-A7F7-D948B159E23F@thinkingcat.com> <CAB75xn60i_ycKtriKMG_+GCYW6faoOV=z+oOTO5rbDvfJ3VxeA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF26115F08@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <728699277.932892.1464274057098.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <D905A836-D2DA-40DF-99D0-71E6636A46D5@gmail.com> <656886491.844659.1464279532857.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 12:36:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kpmu=SeNdkbf7+qPsmZPG8TwGyC54u8yTeUMRQpNycSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3878a2b75b80533c1671c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TAZXoCmd9V2lXbkpPOLX_JPYslY>
Cc: "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:37:29 -0000

Wearing my
super-hypothetical-since-I-am-privileged-and-this-doesn't-actually-affect-me
hat, if I were the adopted parent of a child in a same-sex couple, or were
traveling with my spouse in a same-sex couple, and I thought there was any
real risk of having to go to a hospital with either an incapacitated spouse
or a child, I would be much more worried about coming to the U.S. than to
Singapore.

Why?   There have been actual, recent, documented cases of hospital
personnel violating the law to deprive people of their rights, and we have
no assurance that this couldn't still happen.   There are documented cases
of this happening in Miami and Nevada as recently as 2013.   Given the
current political backlash over same sex marriage, I suspect the risk is
higher now than it was in 2013.

I haven't been able to locate any documented cases of this happening in
Singapore.   What I've read thus far about Singapore suggests that things
are getting better there, not worse.   This doesn't mean there is no risk
of falling afoul of a fanatic, of course.   But clearly the odds of that
are higher in the U.S, despite some very sincere and concerted effort on
the part of the U.S. government right up to the office of the president to
prevent recurrences.