RECENT  POSTS:  » Pro-discrimination activists continue to use one woman's one-sided spite against ex-husband to attack marriage equality » Audio: Tony Perkins minimizes actual religious persecution; pretends he and anti-gay pals face 'deadly consequences' » Ryan Anderson, Mark Regnerus, Rick Warren, other inequality advocates urge Pope to 'commit to marriage' » GLAAD: Are some anti-LGBT activists missing a self-awareness gene? » FRC faults Dems for broken, obstructionist Congress while advocating for broken, obstructionist Congress » FRC senior staffer: 'Ex-Gays: The Best Kept Secret in Your Child’s School' » Video: In inclusive ad, AZ Sec. of State hopeful makes discrimination his rival » That discriminatory OR baker is really overthinking reason why she's national news » Robert Oscar Lopez confirms belief that gay parents are like slave owners » Video: Values Voter Summit marriage panel was particularly boring, bad, ineffective this year  

« 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