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

"John Levine" <> Tue, 24 May 2016 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A7412D196 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NmVbBazBcLfC for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1365412B051 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 85933 invoked from network); 24 May 2016 21:04:06 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 24 May 2016 21:04:06 -0000
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:03:44 -0000
Message-ID: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:04:09 -0000

>>In which context of �^@^\familial legal rights?" Remember, this issue is
>> going to take a good decade to work through the US system.
>No, it's not.  The Supreme Court has ruled on it. ...

>So, the question stands: will the familial and
>parental rights of people in same-sex relationships
>be respected in Singapore?

This reiterates why this sort of question is such a can or worms.

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.

Going the other way, Ted points out that as recently as 2014 the high
court in Singapore upheld their "gross indecency" law, but people have
told us that gays live openly in Singapore without being hassled.  The
2014 decision involved sex in a public toilet, something that's
illegal in a lot of places regardless of gender.

The answer to your question still seems to be we don't know, with a
great deal of variability based on the situation.  It's the same
answer I'd give in parts of the U.S., too.