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 »

01/30/2014

#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