RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« 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