case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] 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.
siofrabunnies: (Default)

Re: The Equal Rights Amendment

[personal profile] siofrabunnies 2013-07-10 12:00 am (UTC)(link)
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.