RECENT  POSTS:  » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs  

« 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