RECENT  POSTS:  » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/03/2008

The sanctity of correcting past mistakes

by Jeremy Hooper

The following text snippet comes from a letter to the editor that was written in 1931:

Sanctity1930

So wait, social conservatives -- what's that about marriage never changing with the times?

1931 Letter to the editor [The Daily Gleaner archive]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

A bit off topic but I wanted to share - I spend way to much time on Townhall.com - but these two columns struck me as odd considering where I read them. Maybe Townhall’s target readers might listen and wise up plus I think it's a step in the right direction:

http://townhall.com/Columnists/JacobSullum/2008/12/03/gay_by_force

http://townhall.com/Columnists/SteveChapman/2008/11/30/gay_adoption_the_real_agenda

Posted by: Alonzo | Dec 3, 2008 4:59:41 PM

I LOVE your "very old newspaper article" articles. This one is great, too.

Apparently, marriage has been under attack for a very, very long time (I suspect you can find some Roman authors complaining about how young people just don't know how to set up a household anymore!)

Posted by: Willie Hewes | Dec 4, 2008 3:55:23 AM

This article is cute! And shows an element that we should use and holler and shout from the rooftops: TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HAS NOT EXISTED SINCE WOMEN BECAME EQUAL TO MEN. "Traditional Marriage" meant a man owned a woman! It was her duty to give him a son, so his stuff would stay in the family. If she refused, he beat and f&cked her until she did, or until she died trying. Then he remarried. When the Supreme Court decided it was possible for a husband to R4PE his wife, it was the end of traditional marriage. The idea of a PARTNERSHIP OF 2 EQUALS BASED IN LOVE is a RADICAL, NEW definition of marriage.

Any woman -- any woman -- who voted for Prop 8 is a raving hypocrite. Or she really wants to go back to the traditional beatings and r4pes.

Posted by: Strepsi | Dec 4, 2008 10:43:02 AM

I was reading a couple weeks back some articles written before 1920 about why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. This from their very loving, caring, CONTROLLING husbands. But it's sanctified, apparently, so that was okay.

Posted by: Phil | Dec 4, 2008 2:42:32 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails