RECENT  POSTS:  » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie'  

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

11/23/2009

Culture Warrin' (G. Harding)

by Jeremy Hooper

Eighty or so years before the sinister federal marriage amendment that tarnished the first decade of the 21st century, there came another kind of FMA. Overall, it wasn't as outright hostile as the modern version, with many of the points (a) still somewhat in practice in varying degrees to this very day; and (b) things that truly do strengthen the institution of marriage, as it were. But nevertheless, it's still interesting to note the similarities/missteps/biases that unite FMA 1.0 and FMA 2.Disgusting. For instance:

- Just like the 2000s failed attempt to interfere with civil bonds of matrimony, the 1920s version was all about putting an overreaching magnifying glass on America's bedrooms.

- It was also primarily championed by Republican members of congress.

- And, surprise, surprise -- the Prohibition era one was also designed to "protect children," especially from the "sub-normal"

Hop in the time machine:

200911232059

**Other "old newspaper" posts:

-'No Law Against Woman Marrying Another Woman', says 103 years ago [G-A-Y]

-Maine votes on (and disapproves of) a civil right: Maine. September, 1917 [G-A-Y]

-The great "traditional marriage" controversy of the 1920s: 'Companionate' advocates: Our forebears in 'attacking traditional marriage' [G-A-Y]

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


Your thoughts

Hey, J. *who* keeps finding these FABULOUS history-related news clipping?!?!?!?! I am seriously impressed, here!!!

Posted by: Wade | Nov 24, 2009 12:55:42 PM

I'm quite resourceful, Wade :-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 24, 2009 12:58:36 PM

And I'm sooooo jealous, J.! I'd *love* to know what your resources *are*! I'm a freelance historian, myself; albeit my source of study is ancient religious expressions and how they have survived despite Christianity.

Posted by: Wade | Nov 24, 2009 3:00:35 PM

Great Find!
By Chance does Thomas.gov Archives give reference of this proposed Federal Legislation back in Jan 1923?

Posted by: Roger | Nov 24, 2009 8:30:41 PM

The only mention I could find was in scholarly text from that period. No other news mentions even. It seems that this one came and went, the way the heinous FMA of the 21st should have.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 24, 2009 8:36:43 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails