RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters  

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


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:


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 - 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:

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