Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2013-07-09 06:42 pm
[ SECRET POST #2380 ]
⌈ 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.

Re: The Equal Rights Amendment
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.