RECENT  POSTS:  » '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' » WND activist: 'Dan Savage has done far worse things than Westboro [Baptist];' says to send him to Iraq to challenge those who hang gays » Michael Sam's teammate offers perfect response to silly shower 'story' » Photo: Negligent NOM posts baby with choking hazard; will someone please think of the children? » Audio: #7thCircuit considers whether marital discrimination is as ugly as other forms (hint: it is) » 'Are you now or have you ever been a gay rights supporter?' » With marriage fight lost, Maggie Gallagher (Srivatav) moves to more neighborly writing » Read: HRC tracks American pro-discrimination activists' international flights  

« 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