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

Michael StJohns <> Wed, 25 May 2016 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909D012D87F for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jY_Mx4RKpszu for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D59F412D87E for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by comcast with SMTP id 5cGebuDp1d8265cIKb5oVj; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:08:32 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1464196112; bh=1pi0H3uXvlSgzFFBdqJqAtkHtKE5hJP0yEUzMpJSTvg=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=cZ5idswjIW4v6eKSkSevs4XgoC7Q+O559nfmNFsARQ21Tvo7wXAJjGWGOYsPx/9RI l7XScB0h+NdS6otRhCdxwM/SU7xwXhaB8aH/uUn7/S168BVP6o57F4UtjWQ1qubG1H saZZu7+SMEhEZvqSWaEmN/9V1xWfz46ZjodA1q8L5H6MrOi2l2Sohkf/TxcIYgxo+v Ol8tT4iyvuxpaizaLHjvzJDJUOPt3gIi5m9QKPzLnDA7KiTRvZ2xnm3uhOBWf9LEUH jqvcXx4bxR7iZRga/LCBG9GTwJGYVdzrVlgRjo60Ht+yxx+jqf5UZBMi2XW1Ia3qxv nyMUkXSATLPQw==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:148:c000:1951:ce8:defc:364c:54f3] ([IPv6:2601:148:c000:1951:ce8:defc:364c:54f3]) by with comcast id yh8X1s00Q3g7ZFv01h8Xey; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:08:32 +0000
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:09:04 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:08:34 -0000

On 5/24/2016 5:03 PM, John Levine wrote:
> You're right, the Federal law in the US on familial rights is quite
> clear.  On the other hand, I wouldn't bet a lot of money on having
> them respected in Alabama, where the chief justice of the state
> supreme court apparently believes that states can nullify Federal law,
> something most of us thought was settled in the 1860s.

Said Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme court got his head handed to 
him by the US Supreme Court on a matter of jurisdiction, "full faith and 
credit", and specifically with respect to adoption by two gay women.

The moral of the story is that there are idiots and bigots everywhere, 
but they appear not to be winning.  (Let's not yet open the discussion 
on the current Presidential contest in the US).