RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« 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