RECENT  POSTS:  » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » 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?  

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

04/07/2010

Forty years of asking 'Then why aren't kids a marital requirement?!'

by Jeremy Hooper

One thing that constantly astounds us is the familiarity of the arguments used both for and against us throughout time. The years change, but arguments that hinge on things like reproduction and child protection stay the same.

Journey back with us to a time when a man named Brady was on first-run TV, an iPad was just a feminine product that had been Maxed out, and gays were celebrating Stonewall's first anniversary by laying the first stones on the path toward Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, D.C., and the world:

Pasadena Star-News, 8/20/1970
201004071402-1

A column that brings to mind one big question: Did ten-year-old Maggie Gallagher visit Pasadena in August of 1970?

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails