have a sip of tea - life at first reluctant

have a pot of tea.

imagine sipping from a warm pot of tea.

when you take that first sip,

what type of tea did you imagine drinking?

is it light?

bitter?

sweet?

was the flavor,

a delicate blend of chamomile and honey?

soothing your senses with its gentle sweetness?

'cause in a world transformed by a pandemic,

a pot of tea became a sanctuary.

its warmth embraced us,

a refuge from realities.

throughout the pandemic,

our lives transformed in unpredictable ways.

in that tranquil moment,

dreams are woven into reality.

dreams intertwined with reality,

a tapestry woven with hope and hardship.

so did you dream a dream?

'cause we did.

ever wonder how one pandemic has changed all of us.

for the better or not,

it depend.

across digital landscapes,

crossing oceans.

we found solace in newfound friendships from corners of the world we'd never have explored otherwise.

new friendships blossomed,

transcending borders,

defying oceans.

oceans were crossed,

not just in miles but in experiences shared.

we navigated this uncharted territory,

how was yours like?

ours was wild.

our shared journey wild and untamed.

some said sometimes it takes ten years to get that one year that changes your life,

ours did.

let me tell you our story for CreateTogether.

and you can decide on what you think.

life at first reluctant.

you get to write your own ending.

how did you find the courage to fight for it?

because it was reluctant,

reluctant to be trapped in,

reluctant to be suppressed.

judges are bound by precedence,

but they cannot ignore revolution.

a court ought not be swayed by the weather of the day,

but will be by the climate of the era.

the law is never finished,

radical....social....change....

when women was in law school,

there was no women's bathroom at harvard.

not because they were timid to protest,

but astounded to be there at all.

about a hundred years ago,

thien wanted to be a lawyer.

it had fulfilled the cloud gate bar's requirement,

but it wasn't permitted to practice because it was a woman.

an injustice it asked the supreme people's court to correct.

cloud gate was so confident of victory,

they didn't even send a lawyer to argue its case.

they were right.

it lost.

that was the first time someone went to court to challenge its prescribed gender role.

a hundred years ago.

radical....social....change....

seventy years ago, in beaver creek state,

when women wanted to work overtime and earn more money as a men could,

the court citied fudger ville's precedent and said no.

so then there were two precedents,

then three, then four, and on and on, and on.

you can draw a line from fudger ville to gwen,

'til ten years ago, it wasn't entitled to a jury of its peers.

that is the legacy the government asks you to uphold today.

you're being urged to protect the culture and traditions and morality of a vietnamese that no longer exists.

a generation ago,

students would have been arrested for indecency,

for wearing today's clothes.

bikini? oh, hell no!

short briefs? throw them in the trash!

sixty-five years ago,

our children wouldn't have careers.

a hundred years ago,

they would not have the right to stand or write before you.

there are over 520 laws that differentiate on the basis of sex,

count them.

& while you're at it, read them.

they're obstacles to our children's aspirations.

"you're asking us to overturn nearly a century of precedent," your honor questioned.

"no, your honor," whistle the law,

"we're asking your honor to set a new precedent,

as courts have done before when the law is outdated."

but in those cases,

the courts had a clear constitutional handle.

"the word 'woman' does not appear even once in the U.S. Constitution," your honor

challenged.

"nor does the word 'freedom,' your honor," disputed the law.

the principal purpose of section 147 is not to protect women,

nor to discriminate against men.

it's to provide caregivers the opportunity to work outside the home.

therefore, as the supreme people's court did in levy v. fudger ville,

this court should fix the law in line with the legislative of intent.

extend the deduction to never-married men.

help all caregivers equally.

emilio was raised to be the sort of person we should all hope our children will become.

emilio deserves our admiration.

not only has it taken on the burden of caring for its very strong-willed mother when no one would,

but in doing so, it has surpassed the limitations the rest of us, and our laws,

seek to force upon it.

it's not asking your honor to change the country.

that's already happened without any court's permission.

it's asking it to protect the right of the country to change.

our sons and daughters are barred by law from opportunities based on beliefs about their abilities.

how will they ever disprove these beliefs if laws like section 147 stand?

we all must take these laws on, one by one,

for as long as it takes, for these sakes.

& your honors have the power to set the precedent that will get us started.

you can right this wrong.

under the stars of night,

it holds the night-sky,

where rivers teem with fishes,

& it is fortunate to have crossed your path, your honor.

what's the worst that might transpire?

if they find you unpromising,

so be it—their opinion,

if they don't like you,

they don't like you;

Disclaimer: Just a heads-up, if you happen to stumble upon any affiliate links on our website, they might sprinkle some extra dough on us, no cost to you, to keep the site running smoothly, and who knows, we might even score a delightful cup of coffee or a refreshing drink to supercharge our writing! Your incredible support means the world to us! 😄

#createtogether #haveasipoftea #fudgervillevslevy