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 »

01/02/2013

Protecting marriage in Illinois, 1937 style

by Jeremy Hooper

The bill was actually proposed by an Indiana legislator, but his stated intent was to "protect Illinois." And while that phrase is now shouted around by folks wanting to stop gays from marrying in the state, the scourge at the time involved heterosexuals crossing state lines in order to get around the medical exams and three day waiting requirements that were required of couples at the time:

201301021245

Somehow, the "protect Illinois" crowd coped with couples' freedom to marry, in-state or out. And they will again.

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