This is what traditional marriage truly means
In her opinion piece “Traditional marriage’ definition leaves out a lot more than same-sex pairs,” Rekha Basu’s clever but patently false arguments about marriage reflect her misunderstanding of it’s purpose.
Basu insinuates those promoting “traditional” marriage are re-defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman in order to target same-sex marriages. She implies a right-wing conspiracy by invoking Project 2025. Proponents of traditional marriage and the authors of Project 2025 are not generating novel political or social attacks; they merely claim the historical consensus, and for good reasons. Basu confuses both chronology and authorship.
Marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman in virtually every culture since the dawn of time; even the limited exceptions merely prove the rule. These cultures have defined marriage as the most fundamental (smallest) governance structure existing for mutual support and for the procreation, cultivation, and care of children. Jewish and Christian orthodoxy understands marriage as an institution created by God, being therefore pre-political (pre-political marriage is also found in most major religions including Islam, Hinduism, and Confucianism). Government did not define traditional marriage; it recognized it as a fundamental, pre-existing institution. Government’s role is thus limited to securing and promoting marriage, not redefining it.
Those who support marriage as a union between a man and a woman are not mere ideologues. Science has repeatedly and consistently shown that children, statistically, do best in a home with biological parents committed to a stable relationship, that is to say married. Statistics also reveal men and women married in heterosexual unions live happier and more fulfilled lives, are generally healthier, build more wealth, and have significantly lower levels of domestic violence than those in other types of sexual relationships.
Basu’s core concern, though, appears to be focused on those whose relationships do not reflect the ideal of marriage that Pastor Travis Decker articulated so well: a life-long committed heterosexual, monogamous, and cohabitating union. Decker’s ideas are not outliers but accurately reflect both predominate religious and historical understanding of marriage and scientifically proven wellness. Basu’s objection, that divorce and non-cohabitation exist as realities, does nothing to refute Decker’s argument about what is best. All Basu does is observe what is.
Basu complains the original definition of marriage excludes many other relationships. That is the point. Marriage defined as “the lifelong union of a man and a woman in a committed relationship for the purpose of mutual support and the procreation and nurture of children” necessarily and providentially excludes all other arrangements and organizations. A Boy Scout troop is not a marriage, nor is friendship, nor is a sexual relationship, be it homosexual, non-monogamous, or uncommitted. This attempt to claim unfairness and exclusion is both pointless and deceptive.
Those who promote the historical view of traditional marriage are not targeting same-sex marriages. Rather, “traditional” marriage apologists are conserving an orthodox religious and historically consistent understanding of society’s most fundamental institution. Individuals like Decker are not promoting bigotry or social harm but are rather promoting the institution most responsible for good in society — traditional marriage. Basu should celebrate, not disparage, traditional marriage proponents.
Matthew Templeman, Dallas Center
It’s time for policy to put small farmers first
Regarding Donnelle Eller’s story “Iowa farm consolidation expected to grow as state faces tidal wave of transition”:
My dad turned 91 this month. The boyhood farm in southwest Iowa he remembers had 19 farrowing sows, 20 pastured cattle, a dozen sheep, geese, and a few horses. In his lifetime, farmland consolidation has all but destroyed small farmers’ way of life and the environment it relies on. Today, the average Iowa hog factory farm contains 6,868 animals.
We need a factory farm moratorium to pause consolidation and restore farming communities. Research from Food & Water Watch, for which I am an Iowa organizer, finds that, since 1982, Iowa counties with the most hog factory farm development have seen lower median household incomes, fewer jobs and population decline twice that of rural counties overall.
We need the Clean Water for Iowa Act to crack down on corporate polluters and give sustainable farmers a leg up. Factory farms and feed crops are ruining the very things that made Iowa so great for farming in the first place: clean water, a stable climate and our rich black soil. Industrial agriculture is the main source of Iowa’s nitrate water pollution, our largest greenhouse gas contributor, and the greatest culprit of wetland and prairie habitat destruction.
The corporatization of Iowa farming should be a rallying cry for state policy that puts small farmers first.
Jennifer Breon, Iowa City
Who is listening to Jesus’ words?
I recently had the opportunity to spend some extended time with my 8-year-old grandson before school started. During one of our many talks, he told me about attending vacation Bible school with his cousins and the fun he had there.
Then he asked me what I thought about “the guy called Jesus.” I told him that I believe Jesus was a very wise teacher who came into this world to teach people to get along and love each other no matter what they looked like or what they believed. My grandson’s reply? “Well Grammie … it doesn’t look like too many people really listened to him because I think there have been lots of wars, some kids have no food, and I even learned about slavery in school!” He proceeded to proclaim, “It seems like a lot of people say they believe in Jesus, but really don’t do what he wanted them to do.”
Out of the mouths of babes.
Shari Addy, Des Moines
It’s shameful for Trump to coddle Putin
Let me get this straight. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s army invaded Ukraine. The Ukrainians are fighting for their country’s life against Putin’s soldiers. Putin’s soldiers are fighting Ukrainian soldiers and intentionally killing non-combatant Ukrainian civilians. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Putin charging him with war crimes. All the signatories to the International Criminal Court are our friends and allies (or, used to be).
President Donald Trump just rolled out the red carpet for Putin and gave him a respectful greeting.
Compare the treatment of Putin to the ambush of Ukraine’s Volodomyr Zelenskyy several months ago. With friends like us, who needs enemies? Now, Trump is saying Ukraine might have to agree to some kind of territory swap because, “Russia is a very big power, and they’re not!” Let’s be clear about this. That would mean a swap of Ukrainian territory (taken by Russia by force) for Ukrainian territory. There would be no Russian territory involved. What’s wrong with this picture? Trump is the first person in my memory to actively campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s a joke of epic proportions.
Colin McBee, West Des Moines
Details about tax cuts don’t make it into ads
A current TV ad hyping three new tax cuts for regular folks fails to cover one very important point. Taking credit for “no tax on tips, overtime , or Social Security,” the ad for Rep. Zach Nunn doesn’t mention that these reductions expire on Dec. 31, 2028. Conveniently, after the 2028 election.
All these cuts have conditions attached. Probably the most misleading is the overtime cut. If your OT pay is time and a half, it only removes the tax on the “half” portion, not all overtime.
There is another big tax change in the current bill. President Donald Trump’s major 2017 tax cut was due to expire. This 2017 cut mostly benefitted people who didn’t need a tax cut, so the Republicans made it permanent, requiring an act of Congress to reverse it. The usual.
Frank McCammond, Redfield
When uniforms divide us: Rethinking domestic military deployments
In times of national crises, real or perceived, deploying the National Guard may seem like a swift solution. Their presence signals control and response — but history warns us that such optics can backfire. When uniforms appear on domestic streets, they risk symbolizing suppression rather than protection.
We’ve seen this before. During the Vietnam War, returning soldiers were met not with gratitude, but with hostility. The uniform became a symbol for unpopular policy – unfairly impacting the person who wore it. That legacy still echoes today.
When troops are deployed during protests or political crises, the context matters. Citizens who feel unheard may view the uniform not as a sign of service, but of force. The soldier, although serving with honor and integrity, can swiftly become a negative symbol.
To preserve institutional trust, we must ask not just if a deployment is legal, but if it’s wise. Are we fostering dialogue or silencing dissent? Are we holding leaders accountable for the missions they authorize? Are we continuing to respect those who carry out the orders?
Having served in uniform, I believe uniforms should unite us. They represent sacrifice and shared responsibility. Let’s ensure they don’t become symbols of division.
Robert Frederick, Waverly
Studies showed increased risk …
I’m not sure if our legislators, both state and national, shouldn’t be like the drug and medical people and be required to post possible side effects on the bills that they bring up.
Roger Picray, Emmetsburg
Law firm pushes unwise compliance in advance
After the Cedar Falls school board voted to remove “gender identity” from its policies, we need to look at the law firm behind the scenes: Ahlers & Cooney.
This firm represents more than 250 school districts across Iowa. When boards face new legislation, it’s often Ahlers they turn to. And when every district gets the same advice from the same place, that advice becomes statewide policy — even when it’s not required.
In Johnston, an Ahlers attorney admitted: “There’s nothing in the new law that says you must remove (gender identity).” Yet they still advised removal. Many boards complied.
This is how far-right policy spreads — not through law, but through cautious, one-size-fits-all legal advice. Local control disappears when nearly every district is steered by one firm.
Ahlers’ reach doesn’t stop there. The firm trains school business officials statewide and shapes decisions on immigration enforcement, civil rights complaints and curriculum limits. Its influence quietly defines how Iowa schools respond — not just to laws, but to pressure.
We need school boards that lead with courage and reflect their communities — not legal advice designed to appease political agendas.
It’s time to see this clearly — and push back. Our students deserve better.
Jennifer Driscoll, Cedar Falls
Resist efforts to stop mail voting
Protecting mail-in voting is a no-brainer. There is no logical, practical, rational reason to eliminate mail-in voting. It is simple; there are many seniors and disabled voters who rely on mail-in voting. Many of these voters, if not most, are Republicans. They are not illegal immigration or fraudsters.
These voters are Iowans and Americans exercising their right to vote. Would this restriction also apply to members of the military who, for whatever reason, might not be able to vote in person?
Suppose the occupant in the White House does sign an executive order banning mail-in voting. In that case, there needs to be a bipartisan, revolutionary revolt from everyone in the legislative branch and an immediate response from the judicial branch of the government. Any attempt to justify or defend such an executive order should be viewed as a betrayal of their offices.
Steven C. Woolery, Ames
Trump breaks his promises to seniors
In the chaos surrounding President Donald Trump’s latest attack on health care, we may forget what he promised us the first time he ran. He promised to “ensure that those who want health care coverage can have it.” He assured us that there would be no cuts to Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security programs, and that nobody’s premiums would increase.
Instead, during his first term Trump tried repeatedly to kill Obamacare, failed every time, and proposed no replacement. In his second term, Trump and his Republican supplicants voted in the Big Ugly Bill that does the opposite of every earlier Trump commitment regarding health care.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million people will lose Medicaid. Changes to the Obamacare premium tax credit will result in 4.2 million fewer subscribers. Because the Big Ugly Bill increases the national debt, Medicare funding will also be reduced.
States are expected to raise Medicaid copays, in part because the federal government will be paying a lower share of the costs. With loss of the premium tax credit, Obamacare will become much more expensive.
And what purpose does the Big Ugly Bill serve? Republicans use the “savings” of cutting health care programs to justify maintaining and expanding new tax cuts for the very wealthy and for large corporations. Adding insult to injury, Republicans claim those tax cuts don’t increase the national debt, even though the bill increases the debt ceiling by $5 trillion.
Promises made; promises broken.
Sue Ravenscroft, Ames
Keep our kids safe: It’s time to arm teachers
After the school shooting in Minneapolis, we will undoubtedly hear renewed calls for futile gun control laws. According to the New York Times, there are hundreds of school districts in the U.S. that allow armed teachers. According to studies by John Lott, none of those schools has experienced even a gun murder, let alone a mass shooting. Since 1995, there has been a total of one minor gun accident in such a school.
Isn’t the policy lesson obvious if one wishes to actually reduce school shootings and not just talk about it or use it as an excuse to support gun control?
The biggest barrier to implementing this policy in Iowa schools has been the irrational policy of an Iowa insurance company to deny insurance to schools that wish to pursue the wise policy of arming teachers or other staff. Now that the Iowa Legislature has mandated a training program for such teachers, hopefully that company will become sane and provide insurance for schools with armed, trained staff under the law.
For those who keep saying we need more than thoughts and prayers, the deterrent effect of armed staff in schools is the glaringly obvious answer.
Donald W. Bohlken, Indianola
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: This is what traditional marriage truly means | Letters
Reporting by The Register’s readers / Des Moines Register
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
