[ SECRET POST #2380 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2380 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 035 secrets from Secret Submission Post #340.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: The Equal Rights Amendment

[(Anonymous)]

First of all, it's important to note that the 14th Amendment did not provide the kind of protection against discriminatory gender laws that we're talking about here at the historical moment when the ERA came into existence or when it was a vibrant political issue. So that's the historical context.

Second, saying that we're "equal under the law", and we have equal protection before the law, regardless of gender, seems to me to be a deeply facile argument. I mean, it's basically an argument along the same lines as the "Gay people have all the same rights as straight people - they're allowed to marry people of the opposite sex just like straight people can" argument. Like, yes, there's equal protection under the law in a formal sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean that no discrimination is possible when you have laws that affect people in deeply different ways depending on their gender.

And making laws to secure the formal equality under the law doesn't diminish that formal equality. The existence of the Voting Rights Act isn't somehow offensive to African-Americans because "they were already citizens and they can't be denied equal protections under the law" because, well, the fact of the matter is that citizens were denied equal protection under the law, and women have been subject to discriminatory laws. The amendment isn't declaring that women are equal under the law, it's attempting to make sure that equality becomes and remains real equality, rather than a formal equality masking real discrimination. And it's just really silly and absurd to me to pretend otherwise.

That said, I agree that, these days, most of the functions an Equal Rights Amendment would have are performed by the 14th Amendment. But it couldn't hurt to make it clearly, and explicitly, and unambiguously the constitutional law of the land in a way that no future Supreme Court could work around. And I think all the arguments advanced by Ainsley there are pretty bad, and in conclusion fuckin' Sorkin

Re: The Equal Rights Amendment

[siofrabunnies]

While I'm not keeping up with the news, I think I can get the gist of events, and I have to agree. We shouldn't need the law, but it turns out, we do.

I mean, lawyers, lawmakers, and judges are all constantly searching for or trying to close loopholes and reinterpretaions. I want everything spelled out in the most certain and concrete terms. If we need a law saying that you can't discriminate based on the number of freckles on your face, it's because there's someone out there who really hates those 50-freckle people, and he will say "Hey, there ain't no law."

I once heard a guy back in high school say "All men are created equal. Men, not women." That's the kind of language that, argued by certain people in front of certain judges, could be catastrophic. Of course, no one would think of interpreting it that way, right? Except, no, there's just a lucky agreement that this particular phrase won't be interpreted that way. I don't like unspoken agreements when it comes to law, especially civil rights.