RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » 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'  

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

11/17/2009

'Companionate' advocates: Our forebears in 'attacking traditional marriage'

by Jeremy Hooper

Now it's marriage equality for same-sex couples. But back in the late 20's, it was another concept that was threatening to rock "traditional marriage" from its moorings. Or so its critics would have you believe.

The subject was "companionate marriage," which essentially dealt the right of couples to live in equal marital partnerships without children, with legalized birth control, and with the ability to dissolve the union by mutual consent (and without financial obligations to one another) if the marriage failed. Check out this seventy-one-year-old news article and marvel at the similarities between the way this supposedly "radical" idea was attacked then, and the way our supposedly "radical" couplings are attacked now:

Oakland Tribune, June 10, 1928

200911171723-1

200911171718-1

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


Your thoughts

Just one small correction: it's 81, not 71 years old.

Posted by: Mike | Nov 17, 2009 7:21:36 PM

wow

Posted by: John Ozed | Nov 17, 2009 8:02:27 PM

The issue goes a lot further back. When Julia McNair Wright published her household encyclopedia in the late 1870's, one of the three young family narratives she used to pull her hundreds of pages together featured a young woman who was raised to make up her own mind by a well off but widowed father (who for some reason did not remarry). The marriage she got was emphatically a matter of mutual consent. The other two were more traditional, but not unaware of issues of consent. Mrs. Wright was fairly conventional, but not ignorant about it. Her massive publishing history may be compared to that of more radical feminists like Louisa May Alcott. They both thought it a crime to keep girls ignorant, if only because men did sometimes die.

Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 18, 2009 2:04:16 PM

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! G-A-Y where did you EVER happen upon this news-clipping?!?!?!?!

Take THAT and choke on it, Mags!!!

Posted by: Wade | Nov 18, 2009 3:15:20 PM

I think today we call that shacking up. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: Bill Ware | Nov 18, 2009 4:18:20 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails