RECENT  POSTS:  » 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? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs  

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

03/02/2011

Reexamining Maryland marriage: What did 'dangerous legislation' look like in 1939?

by Jeremy Hooper

These days, Maryland social conservatives act as if the state's civil marriage laws cannot, should not, and will not be reexamined through a modern lens, since "traditional marriage" is and has always been an undebatable perfect. They paint the man/woman, two-partner, legally consenting, of-age marriage system as both goodly and Godly, overlooking anything inconvenient that might tarnish the limited historical lens.

But check this out. Almost seventy-two years to the day, another Democratic (and female!) delegate was taking a bold look at Maryland's marriage civil laws, pushing for policy that she felt would better befit the public's wants and needs and protections. She perceived a failing in the "traditional marriage" of the time so she proposed a reconsideration of that long held tradition. And the Democratic delegate did this, even as opposition painted her bill as "dangerous legislation." Journey back:

201103020955

Few Marylanders of 2011 would object to raising the marital age above 12-years. In fact, a majority would most likely insist. Most are surely unaware that the state's marriage tradition ever even allowed for such youthful unions.

We're convinced that even fewer Marylanders of 2083 will object to the supposed "dangerous legislation" of this day.

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