Trouble in River City

Cal Thomas's picture

When Meredith Willson wrote the wildly popular musical “The Music Man” half a century ago, Harold Hill proclaimed trouble had come to River City, Iowa, in the form of a pool hall, which he claimed would corrupt young people unless the local citizens bought the musical instruments he was selling and got their kids into a marching band. He promised that playing music would keep kids from “fritterin’ away their mealtime, suppertime, chore time, too” and going to the track to watch “some stuck-up jockey boy sittin’ on Dan Patch.”

Neither Willson, nor his mythical character Hill, could have foreseen what “trouble” the Iowa Supreme Court has brought on the state (and potentially the nation) when it unanimously ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry “does not substantially further any important government objective,” in the words of Justice Mark S. Cady, who wrote the opinion for the seven-member court.

Opponents of same-sex marriage vow to fight the ruling; but Iowa law requires a two-year process to amend the state constitution and with Democrats controlling the legislature and homosexuals a significant part of the party’s base, it is unlikely the ruling will be overturned.

One must hand it to the gay rights movement. They have taken advantage of a morally exhausted nation that tolerates so many things that used to be intolerable — from abortion, to easy divorce, to pornography. And they have attacked American traditions at their strongest points, from the military, to pressuring Disney to allow “gay days” at their amusement parks, to marriage.

The problem with the Iowa Court ruling is that it vitiates a standard that defined marriage as between two people of the opposite sex, which was God’s idea, not government’s (see Genesis 2:24), while failing to substitute a new standard.

If homosexual marriage is now one of two equally valid choices, will other options be available anytime soon? On HBO, a popular series called “Big Love” portrays a Mormon polygamist and his three wives (he nearly took a fourth wife this season). I wonder why this never works with a woman having three husbands?

But I digress, or do I? If this man lived in Iowa and wanted three wives, how could the Iowa Supreme Court stop him? Utah was not allowed to enter the Union until it agreed to outlaw polygamy. Today, under the new “no standards” established by the Iowa Supreme Court, it would be impossible to enforce anything.

As Iowa and other courts continue to dismantle the foundations of our nation without the approval of its citizens (each time the public gets an opportunity to vote on marriage, it votes to uphold the male-female version), they have an obligation to say where they intend to take us. What is the new standard for human relationships? Or do we make this up as we go, bowing to whatever pressure group makes the most noise?

To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve “traditional marriage” in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: what poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings?

Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That’s because it doesn’t raise money and won’t get them on TV.

Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That’s because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them.

The battle over same-sex marriage is on the way to being lost. For conservatives who still have faith in the political system to reverse the momentum, you are — to recall Harold Hill — “closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge.”

[mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] ©2009 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

login to post comments | Cal Thomas's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by mysteryman on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 4:30pm.

If some of these folks had the honor as young men and women to have been straped into the front seat of a Super Bee, and been launched off the ramp in 25ft seas, I guarantee that would have straightend most of em out... And no for all those lames, im not talking about no car....PEACE

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 11:30am.

Publisher Cal Beverly gives us a special treat because it's Easter: Not one, but TWO gay bashing columns in this week's Citizen.

Cal Thomas phones in his usual diatribe against the Homosexual Menace, and hits all the usual high spots, including his "fact" that gay unions will inevitably begat polygamy, incest, yada yada yada.

Great counter-argument by Dahlia Latwick is HERE: "Slippery Slop"


matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 11:36am.

Easter is the perfect season for some good ol'fashion Gay bashing


Evil Elvis's picture
Submitted by Evil Elvis on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 11:43am.

What could be more gay than laying down with twelve other men?

How sad that Amereagans are still trippin' on homosexuality in 2009.


matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 11:53am.

Every year my family and I go down to mid-town and throw painted easter eggs at the Flamers. Its easily my most favoritest day of the year.


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 2:03pm.

and I find the left wing throwing around silly hate. Don't celebrate Easter if you want, I truly rejoice for what Easter represents and I am not filled with hate. Why do you tar me this way, Matt? Don't believe. Campaign for whatever proclivities you desire, but don't tar people who do not think as you. I saw plenty of left wing hate when they campaigned against the Gulf War in 1991. Why do you only target people of Christian faith?


matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 2:35pm.

I'm not filled with hate. I just don't like the moral-right telling me what to do. If want to go out and marry a man its none of your business. Sorry to hurt you feeling but I will start respecting christianity when christianity starts respecting everyone else.

It is not ok to knock on my door at 8am to to spread the word of Jesus.


Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 2:54pm.

We have something in common in that I do not care to have the liberal-left telling me that they're always right and that they know best. Truth be known, their prognostications are correct less than half the time. The problem is that recently they are on a hot streak.

By the way, have you ever really been awakened at 8:00am by someone "spreading the Gospel?" Could it be that you exagerate?


matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 5:13pm.

In response to your Liberal-left comment:

I completely agree. I consider myself to be more of a neutral person. I don’t particularly like the left or right side. As I have said I don't like the moral-right telling gay people its not ok to get marries. Likewise, I can't stand the Atheists and there battle to erase every thing Christian from the public's ears and eyes. Also, I hate anti-tobacco. I don’t if they are left or right wingers. I really don’t care which side they are on. My point is, if you don’t like smoke… Don’t go to the freakin bar. Bottom line it’s not about me hating Christians I just don’t like people who force their beliefs on others


matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 5:01pm.

When I was in college I lived down the street from a church. Every Saturday would they would take feild trips to the neighboring apartment's to harass the hung over college kids. I mentioned it example of christians not being respectful of others. And as an example of Christians forcing their beliefs on other. I did this in response to The Wedge for calling me hateful and telling me not to push my beliefs on him.

Why is it hateful for me to poke fun at Christians for not allowing gay marrriage but it is ok for Christians to tell a very large group of people it is not ok to get married and be happy? I personally think that restricting gays from getting married is much more hateful than me making jokes about gay bashing on easter.


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 2:53pm.

people are making there views known about how you should live all over the place. Are you mad about a mandated conversion of light bulbs? Are you mad about the removal of R-14 from HVAC equipment. Do you get angered at mandatory seat belt laws? Around grass height requirements? Your anger seems to be very selective. So your hot for some dude? Go have fun, I guess. Do you really need state sanctioning?

Now people coming to your door at 8 am is just wrong? How many times does that happen to you? I have never experienced that in any of the 7 states or 3 countries that I have lived in.


matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 7:00pm.

no, those things do not make me angry. They sound very reasonable to me. I just don't think it is reasonable to tell two dudes they can't get married justn because your god says its wrong. I'll stop making fun of easter when you say its ok for guys to get married


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 7:18pm.

What you deem reasonable, I deem unreasonable, and vice versa. I'll make you a deal. You want to make fun of Easter, I will make fun of gay marriage. I don't really want to, but once again, it seems a reasonable response to me. Cheers to you


matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 7:27pm.

That works for me. I was just poking fun in the first place. I didn't mean to get into a religious debate. Have a nice evening Wedge.


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 7:50pm.

I don't see the need to trash homosexuals. Depeche Mode-People are People- Have a good evening, stay away from tornados


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 2:09pm.

"I saw plenty of left wing hate when they campaigned against the Gulf War in 1991."

Suuuuuuure you did.


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 2:23pm.

Have you ever been spit on by people just because of your uniform? I have-- Philadelphia, PA 1990 Army Navy Game- Vets stadium. Are you going to call me a coward and liar too, Sniffles?


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 3:22pm.

You want me to believe that a "leftie" spat upon you at the Army-Navy game, which is possibly the biggest concentration of jingoistic nationalism in the United States today this side of Terry Garlock?

Now, the question that immediately comes to mind is, if a so-called "leftie" despises the military so much, what on Earth would he/she be doing at an Army-Navy game, where he/she would most likely be outnumbered, oh, say, 50,000 to 1? That makes no sense.

No, my friend, I'm afraid I don't believe your fantastic tale. I don't doubt that you were spat upon, but I sincerely doubt it was because of your political beliefs.

Perhaps you urinated from the upper decks onto the crowd below? That would seem more your "style"....


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 3:39pm.

Let's paint the picture for you, you ignoramus. It was the build up for the gulf war- the 82nd division was deployed for Desert Shield. The Army Navy game was nationally televised and the antiwar people were out. As a cadet, I was plainly visible and it was on the streets before the line up began, when the cadets were arriving individually to the stadium area since most were on pass for the weekend. Don't believe it if you want, but if you didn't walk there and see it, then how can you be so sure, you smug asshat? It was about the army, not ideology at the time. You have just become another bomb thrower and I will enjoy the coming blogs.


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 3:58pm.

Interesting. I can't seem to find any contemporary account..hell, ANY account of protesters at this game.

Tell you what, though, I'll make you a deal. You link me to anything showing that there were protesters at that game and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, if I'm mistaken I don't have a problem admitting my errors, unlike some of the liars and cowards that lurk around here.

Until you can provide some corroboration, though, your story doesn't pass the "smell test".


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 6:40pm.

with my company friends and see if they have pictures hanging around. Otherwise I am not investing too much time. You can assume that I am a liar, and I will assume that you are a wife beater or worse. We will call it moral equivalence. Watch out for that tornado, Sniffle. I'd hate for it to catch that inflated ID of yours


S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 3:14pm.

just do that..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil

GUN CONTROL Link


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.