RECENT  POSTS:  » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

« 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

**SEE ALSO: Some 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