RECENT  POSTS:  » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie'  

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

01/30/2014

#ThrowBackThursday: Federal Marriage Amendment circa 1900

by Jeremy Hooper

Some people thought "traditional marriage" included a right to multiple wives, while certain members of Congress believed federal policy should be defined by discrimination. A look back at a proposed federal marriage amendment at the turn of the last century:

Emmet County Republican, January 25, 1900
201401300909

Interestingly enough, modern-day social conservatives are using polygamy fears in their arguments in favor of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment of our day, suggesting that same-sex marriages will open that door. And of course it's the Southern members of Congress who are more likely to seek a more stringent and restrictive version of a ban, to the dismay of even some on their side.

Perhaps in another one hundred fourteen years, will reach consensus. But probably not.

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