RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism » The 'why can't they take their business elsewhere?' line: Not only offensive but legally meaningless » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm) » Video: 'Vice' covers the sad, dangerous, discredited world of 'conversion therapy' » Buzzfeed: Jeb Bush's nascent team is teeming with gay Republicans » FRC prays against gay acceptance to 'avoid the wrath of God' » Video: Mark Cuban supports religious biz owners that 'just say no' to serving same-sex weddings » We're not driven by animus, say groups that are known for showing animus toward gay couples » Video: Onetime LGBT community foe delivers crushing blow to 'religious freedom' (a.k.a. license to discriminate) bills » Q. How does Mark Regnerus 'prove' he's not an anti-gay activist?  

« 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