Couple more data points
1. The US is lagging EU and Latin America in acceptance of gay
marriage (socially and by law). Other countries have accepted gay
marriage much earlier. See
http://time.com/3937766/us-supreme-court-countries-same-sex-gay-marriage-legal/
for data.
There was never a discussion to exclude US from the list of acceptable
meeting venues AFAIK.
2. Politics and laws are lagging indicator of public opinion
generally. The following graph show the public acceptance of gay
marriage in the US over the years. Look at where the lines cross and
when laws are made. See link below for data
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
Now the question I ask of the community is this ? Is it prudent to
exclude a lot more people who would benefit from holding a meeting in
a place closer to them (in Asia) or would you want to punish those
very people by holding meetings elsewhere (thereby piling additional
travel costs on them). Is this a regressive move or a progressive one
?
The answer is not an easy one.
-- Vinayak
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 5/25/16 12:36 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
It's probably easier to enumerate who's excluded than who's included:
No, it's still not really working.
Would we, for example, be willing to meet in a place that
criminalizes Muslims or Jews or Hindus? I sincerely hope not,
and I don't think that we would.
I suppose it would provide some small personal assurance if the IETF,
in fact, would meet in such a place and the issue here is not that
people here are comfortable excluding GLBT people as a class. (I'd
skip that meeting, too, for whatever it's worth).
Melinda