It's unnerving when some archaic laws that people laugh at got passed during your lifetime.

It spoils the enjoyment I used to have when late night talk show hosts pointed out arcane laws: “It is illegal in Pennsylvania to sleep on top of a refrigerator outdoors,” or, “In Switzerland, you are not allowed to flush the toilet after 10 p.m. if you live in an apartment.” That kind of thing – statutes addressing something people were upset about for, like, a week in 1936.

But now, everyone is joking about laws the town of Woodbury passed in 1967. And although some of the laws are indeed bad, I still vaguely recall the era in which they would have seemed normal.

Back in the '60s – when Woodbury must have been besieged by beatniks and anarchists bent on redefining the dominant paradigm or maybe just wandering around calling everyone “beautiful” until they realized San Francisco was in the other direction – the town passed 21 laws under the title “Peace and Good Order.” The town now wants to repeal 18 of them.

For example, there's municipal code 139-8, forbidding cross-dressing: “No person shall appear in any street or public place in the city in a state of nudity or in a dress not belonging to his sex.”

Oh sure, this law seems to have come out of the Stone Age. Though it's still unusual to see men wearing dresses, it's only slightly less unusual to see women wearing dresses. Frankly, it would be refreshing to see anybody at all in women's clothes. But the people of 1967 couldn't have seen this coming. No one could have predicted the pantsuit or David Bowie. No one could have known that, if men couldn't pretend to be women, New York City would lose half its streetwalkers.

Similarly, don't be quick to judge statute 139-14: “The unnecessary ringing of bells or blowing of steam whistles in the city is hereby prohibited.” This was a huge problem in 1967, when steam ships still rolled down the mighty Mississippi, propelled by paddle wheels and carrying all manner of gamblers, prospectors and assorted hippie chicks.

Try to be fair, as well, about the seven ordinances that define and outlaw loitering – or as the statute defines it, “hanging around,” or “remaining idle in essentially one location.” Who doesn't know at least one or two people who have been hanging around Woodbury for too long?

And be kind about ordinance 139-2, forbidding fortune tellers: “No person shall use or pretend to use or have any skill in physiognomy, palmistry or like crafty science, or pretend to tell destinies or fortunes.” This made sense in 1967 because no one actually could predict the future back then. It would be years before we figured out the secret: It only works over the phone.

These were good laws in their day. And some others that are up for repeal ought to be good laws still. Of course, many of those other ordinances may be getting reconsidered because they're already covered by state law. But in order for me to know that for sure, I'd have to start looking stuff up. So just to be on the safe side, I'm going to assume Woodbury is repealing these laws because it wants all these things – cock fighting, for example (ordinance 139-5), or keeping a “house of ill fame” (139-6), carrying a concealed weapon (139-20), gambling (139-7) or disturbing school exercises and annoying children (139-15). At last, it is legal for me to annoy children. Gather 'round, kiddies, and allow me to tell you pointless stories about my medical problems.

The main thing troubling me, though, are the remaining “Peace and Good Order” laws that look like they'll stay on the books. In particular, there has been no talk of revoking statute 139-18, forbidding various entertainments on a Sunday: No amusement parks, playhouses, poolrooms, shooting galleries, sports parks, bowling alleys, miniature golf courses and what the statute quaintly refers to as “showhouses” and “dance halls.” Yet on every other day of the week, there's cock fighting.

It only goes to show you that the law, too, is subject to the whims of fashion, just like mullet haircuts – which also ought to be illegal. And I don't even care if people laugh at that law in 30 years.