Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 06:32 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 01D7812D53C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ofPoMkwWcy9l for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (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 9166E12B077 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id qo8so14619241pab.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fhqkMp5XhQ7YUUV/3/jUVrRH8mxotsGx3p16BXH00b0=; b=CTSa+dncZ1V3ketfPXpBNG38VbCyWPz07SeRubyeTGRfqvuh2Ot2HByLWhvUniPceB 5dFwURebCS0Yseit06zYKSQrMsrfajYX7g3RfmygKI5dogPfTjQsQf4TlG/J1Syh6DwK /I9GbPEdUPLVhdfR0DLq6GUURa6ghLaOoTYHNqXVfN1qnow+t04TeOrFb0gAihKj6rff NwRTQ3/UcU+HdIJ9wLZafUOnAFUa7vaBMVjt7isc75ZOEqE4m50pz2pT12Pf4YI5icyY h2PnmPFMQoxCuYsVHneAmGzb9eXjAsSDZEEIyIgvzE5hTyXtVOZx19zR/gbAXPhEVEkh E0LQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fhqkMp5XhQ7YUUV/3/jUVrRH8mxotsGx3p16BXH00b0=; b=CLSJuQMr2Cz0opm6AG4Y1Lw8Q7XAqAnG+8onexmI+nKvkjLVEAhzaPAhLWkxSD8mmT hLXHOt4g2zFcGpoZjBjeT07I3L1wAoa9tmmaoUborGewRRhSSTkqpw67q2RwXp6cJ0BW NHaGI0w8tz8BPb6Lj6BSS+/3MEflPYpxj1LKLQmXbmMhqcTV7QaNXvVrjwnGqjyb1EtC /MYvBApqSBoB9/cHCUZoLUWuqt+GwlW46kWByCiwWKLi4PcV7vSKChcwGQIZWA6zmgcJ RVV9nuAP0d6IU233ID7zO7UqITfp7Tg3shvzCDkPdZ0Ze0XFkXo45xjVYKl0X2MIHZpk g3vQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKJNhvUqxlVKPJPoqv4SMkwvkEaUg3dlrzWQuXQM5yTSjgg6nQJ0GpLZz5Kyv+ZNA==
X-Received: by 10.66.122.175 with SMTP id lt15mr3201478pab.51.1464157928964; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (63-140-104-230-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.104.230]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id l123sm58892214pfl.36.2016.05.24.23.32.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 May 2016 23:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <bd1f61ef-3be2-1a16-804c-68548df0b789@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <da508fd5-307c-c61e-5b72-185238414a9c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:31:36 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VEODjWHJmTXMFAMw4mwGM-eEg2U>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, 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: Wed, 25 May 2016 06:32:11 -0000

On 5/24/16 10:17 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Perhaps, but "recourse" might be just as painful and time consuming
> whether you are stuck in legal wranglings in Alabama or featured in
> the next episode of "Locked up Abroad".

Look ...  Those of us who live this stuff every day and who've
been living it for years might have an understanding of it
that's a little, well, *richer* than people for whom this
is all an abstraction, and who didn't even bother to think
about this particular issue with respect to meeting venues
until they were told that they'd made a mistake.  So, I would
be grateful if people making assertions on the basis of things
they think almost certainly must be true would either verify
those things before sending them out, or just ask.

If you take a look at the situation in the US, you'll find
that Judge Roy Moore was removed from the bench and that Kim
Davis went to jail for contempt of court.  The reason this is
relevant is because ...

 > The pertinent question is
 > still: Will the familial and parental rights of people in same-sex
 > relationships be respected in Singapore?

Indeed, it is.  However several people have made the unfounded
assertion that because there are bigots in public office in the
US things here are as oppressive as Singapore.  And that's what
I was posting in response to.  They are not the same.  We have
the law protecting glbt familial rights and those laws are being
upheld.

> Everything we have been told from folks in Singapore and frequent
> travelers thereto says "yes". With respect to any medical situation,
> it might be prudent to carry paperwork which documents the
> relationship.

Okay, so you're putting an additional burden (economic and
otherwise) on people in same-sex relationships.  That's a
problem.  A bigger problem is that there is no reason whatsoever
to believe that anybody in Singapore is going to honor a contract
drawn up in the United States by American lawyers.

It is certainly possible that you are able to come up with
a mechanism for dealing with this sort of problem that generations
of glbt people have somehow overlooked, but it seems implausible.

Melinda