RECENT  POSTS:  » You know what's not presidential? Like at all? » Inevitable justice temporarily delayed in Alabama » Read: Fed. judge strikes Alabama marriage ban; no stay on ruling » Derisively remembering when full equality was in 'Jeopardy!' » When all else fails, demand your letters are capitalized » Major Iowa caucus player calls on next President to 'politely reject unjust SCOTUS opinions' » Photo: Supreme Court's Thomas poses with NOM's cofounder, major equality opponent » Wait, even NewsMax is now pushing back against anti-gay spin?! » Deflating the anti-gay right's latest 'gotcha!' » POTUS hails marriage equality in State of the Union speech  

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

11/20/2009

'No Law Against Woman Marrying Another Woman', says 103 years ago

by Jeremy Hooper

A fascinating read from 1906:

6A00D8341C503453Ef0120A6Bd702F970B-1

**Other "old newspaper" posts:

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

-The great "traditional marriage" controversy of the 1920's: '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

What a find!

Posted by: Johan Baumeister | Nov 20, 2009 5:15:54 PM

That's probably when Pat Robertson first got the idea of going global with a worldwide televangelism network! It's just supposition on my part that he was equally as old and decrepit looking back then as he is now. And that he was equally as capable back then of spotting a politically expedient group of people that he could hate.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 20, 2009 5:46:20 PM

We have come as far as we have come carried on the shoulders of these people and others who suffered the same indignities.

Yet, how far we still have to go.

Posted by: Em | Nov 20, 2009 7:11:01 PM

What a treasure of history! As a former 8th grade history teacher, I used documents, not text books, to teach. I wish I'd had this news story. It's also a reminder to all of to hold on to the hard copy newspaper stories about LGBT life today. It will be invaluable for future generations.

Posted by: Ken Harvey | Nov 20, 2009 7:17:49 PM

Well, like I posted already today - it's the extreme right-wingers and all those voters who have redefined marriage in the law books to read "one man, one woman." But then they go around accusing us of redefining marriage!

103 years ago, there was no law against same-sex marriage. But somehow, now there is. Who changed it? Not us.

Posted by: Unite the Fight | Nov 20, 2009 8:34:58 PM

Fascinating how we appear to have become more conservative as time progresses! It is an interesting read. Thank you for this document.

Posted by: Vak | Nov 22, 2009 5:53:38 AM

...but there was apparently a law against women wearing men's clothing (or, probably, vice versa). Those laws must have gotten harder to enforce later as casual clothing styles started converging in a unisex way (jeans and a T-shirt will work for either sex).

Posted by: Dan T. | Nov 22, 2009 2:09:12 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails