Spring is singing in the air and in the streets. A cardinal perches in the trees near our house and sings loudly and beautifully every morning. The gutters in our street are gurgling with water from melting snow. The sun is higher in the sky now and its rays are warmer. It’s the Christian Holy Week, and Easter is this Sunday. All signs point to the arrival of spring and the joy that comes with the new season.

I would be content to write about the approach of winter’s end this week, but the region is in the world news now for an unfortunate reason. On Monday, March 21, a teenager shot and killed ten people (including himself) at the high school on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in northern Minnesota, home to the Red Lake band of Ojibwe, also called the Chippewa or Anishinabe.

We see the faces of shocked Ojibwe on our television screens. There, also on the screen, is an aerial shot of the school, which, apart from the snow on the ground, looks as though it could be almost any other school in the country.

We read and hear about so much suffering and death in our world that we tend to become emotionally distant from all of it, and in many ways I have the same reaction to this sad event. It was not that long ago–November of last year–that we heard about the shooting of six hunters in northwestern Wisconsin. However, I have thought about the horror that must have been felt by the Red Lake victims and those threatened by the gunman. As I picture in my mind what might have happened, I see the events happening in my old high school. I suppose this is my way of imagining the enormity of what happened for the people who experienced it.

Shortly after the shootings, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty spoke to the public with heartfelt sadness and compassion for the victims. The school seemed to have what was necessary to protect students, he said. It had security guards and a metal detector. In the end, he said, no precautions can provide absolute protection from someone bent on doing harm.

I must agree with the governor, though in a limited way. The killer talked about guns and shooting people at school. He left messages and images on the Internet that signaled his troubles. It’s surely possible that someone could have seen the signs, and this young man might have been steered back to sanity. But at the same time, not all violence and madness can be prevented. We live in an imperfect, fallen world, and we experience grief and sadness at its sometimes mad ways, even as spring happens around us and we sing songs of praise and resurrection.

Legislators and citizens across the country have a very real and pragmatic question before them: Should a state, or the nation itself, pass a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex couples from marrying or entering into a marriage-like union? South Dakota voters will face this question in 2006, and Minnesota voters may be forced to consider it as well in the same year.

Let’s first look at the text of the proposed amendments in South Dakota and Minnesota. In South Dakota, House Joint Resolution 1001 has been passed by both chambers of the South Dakota legislature. Its proposed constitutional amendment reads as follows:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.”

In Minnesota, the state Senate is considering whether or not to put an amendment before the voters. The proposed amendment, as stated in Senate Bill 1691, reads:

“Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent.”

My own views on the issue are straightforward, and I arrive at them with no hesitation: Such amendments unjustly discriminate against gays and lesbians who wish to enter into a legally recognized partnership, whether that partnership is called marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership.

In writing this column, I’ve struggled with what more I want to say on this issue. Others can speak more knowledgeably about the legal and religious arguments on both sides of this issue. However, I do want to briefly express why I feel strongly about the issue.

I am a heterosexual male, a Christian, a husband, and a father, and I believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, or at the very least to enter into civil unions. Why do I believe this? Because I’ve known many gays and lesbians over the years and I want them to enjoy the same kind of happiness I have in my marriage. Because my gut tells me that they did not simply choose to be homosexual as some kind of a “lifestyle” choice; rather, they were simply born this way. Because I do not feel that a successful gay or lesbian marriage threatens my own marriage or the institution of marriage in general. Because having a same-sex couple make a commitment of fidelity to one another makes our society better, not worse; it strengthens society by providing stability in relationships and encourages fidelity.

It’s understandable to me that there has been a powerful reaction against same-sex marriage in our country over the last several years. Legally recognizing same-sex unions goes against centuries of tradition. It involves the public recognition and sanction of relationships that many, if not most, people do not understand and, to be blunt, find repugnant.

I’m a member of the United Methodist Church, one of many religious denominations that are deeply divided on this issue. I know there are Biblical passages that condemn homosexuality. I respect the opinions of the many, many people who disagree with me, and I know that they hold their views with strong conviction.

Although this reaction against same-sex marriage–and it is an essentially reactionary sentiment–is understandable, I also find it disappointing. I’m disappointed that people would deny the benefit of a socially sanctioned union to their gay friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives. If they do not know any homosexual people in their communities, then I’m disappointed by that too. Either there are gays and lesbians in their midst who do not feel it is safe to come out of the closet, or gays and lesbians have moved to friendlier places.

I believe that one day most Americans will look back on this era in the same way that they now look back on the Jim Crow era of racial segregation and discrimination–that is, with a sense of sadness and bewilderment that a minority was treated unjustly.

Much can and will happen on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court may strike down state marriage amendments as unconstitutional, or it may let them stand. Traditionalists may realize their ultimate victory and attach a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, where no court could strike it down. Or, our culture may conclude that gay and lesbian couples deserve to have legally recognized partnerships and rescind these marriage amendments. I expect the latter will be the case, and that it will take some time to get there.

I’ve said before that I don’t intend to make “Northern Letter” a column that is principally about politics. But since our politics is a product of our culture, it would be foolish to ignore the subject completely. At the same time, I don’t want to focus primarily on politics or make this a strictly partisan outlet. Ideally, this would remain a column that a wide variety of people with different political outlooks would find enlightening.

Avoiding strict partisanship, I believe, requires a certain etiquette and decorum. That etiquette and decorum would preclude the following behaviors toward people and groups: calling them names other than those they use themselves; describing them using stereotypes; treating them with sarcasm, contempt, or worse; describing them in exaggerated language; and mischaracterizing or ignoring their best arguments. I’m sure that is not a comprehensive list, but it is what comes to my mind now.

Does this mean that I should censor myself when it comes to some of my beliefs and emotions? Yes, it does, but only in a limited way–in the same way that, when we are dealing with people in person, we avoid calling them names in order to keep an already tense argument from escalating into something worse. This does not mean that I pretend that I am a nonpartisan reporter all the time. I will try at times to simply present the facts and at other times to present my opinion. The former is a way to educate myself and others–and perhaps even challenge my own biases and assumptions–and the latter is a way to express my own views and at the same time be honest and forthright.

Now that I’ve said that I will try to meet this standard, readers (few though they are) are sure to point out where I fall short.

And so here we go with one of the more important political issues of our day, in my opinion: same-sex marriage or civil union. The topic is back in our regional news outlets and a source of discussion among friends and neighbors. What follows are some facts and players, as well as my opinions, with more to follow in future columns.

The state of South Dakota has committed itself to putting a marriage amendment on the 2006 general election ballot. On February 28, the state Senate easily passed a joint resolution on the issue, the House having done so earlier. See a good Aberdeen News article on the issue.

On March 8 a Minnesota state senator, Michele Bachmann (R-Stillwater), introduced a proposal for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. According to Bachmann, the marriage amendment would also ban civil unions for gays.

A Star Tribune article on March 9 by reporter Pat Doyle provided a balanced news story on the issue and the players involved. The story reminds readers that an April 2004 Star Tribune Minnesota Poll found that “58 percent of respondents said they would vote for a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Thirty-five percent would oppose it.” This leaves unexplained whether Minnesotans would accept same-sex civil unions that were not called “marriages” in their legal definition.

Similar state amendments passed by even greater margins in the 2004 elections, including one in North Dakota. According to the Star Tribune, the earliest date that a possible amendment could be put before Minnesota voters would be the 2006 election. Seventeen states have added same-sex marriage bans to their constitutions, and another 19 are considering marriage amendments. Minnesota Public Radio also aired a similar news story following Bachmann’s announcement.

The Democratic response to Bachmann’s announcement, as described in the Star Tribune article, seemed misguided to my mind–and please note that I am a Democrat myself. Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson (D-Willmar) said, “I know that Senate Democrats will want other constitutional amendments.” Apparently this would involve constitutional amendments relating to health care, the environment, and gambling.

Johnson has essentially disarmed himself of a potentially useful argument that constitutional amendments should be rare and only used in exceptional circumstances. In other words, we should not clutter up our constitution unnecessarily.

Republicans, of course, believe the amendment is necessary, pointing out that some courts have found state marriage statutes that outlaw same-sex marriages or civil unions to be unconstitutional. The amendment is an understandable move by Republicans, even if it is an ugly one, in my opinion. I do believe that the Republicans are institutionalizing discrimination against a minority–in this case a sexual minority, one that our culture has only recently begun to recognize and accept publicly. More on that in the future.

Besides the parties, advocacy groups involved in this issue include OutFront Minnesota, a gay rights advocacy group, and the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), a traditional values advocacy group. The MFC web site has a page devoted to Minnesota for Marriage, which it describes in this way: “Minnesota For Marriage is a nonpartisan grassroots group of Minnesotans working to pass a State Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as ‘the union of one man and one woman, with no other relationship being recognized as marriage or its legal equivalent.’” Look at the group’s web site to find the online version of their video, “The Battle for Marriage in Minnesota.”

Both Outfront Minnesota and MFC plan rallies in April, and MFC plans to run radio ads and notify local clergy to talk about the issue.

If you have strong feelings on this issue, I suggest you contact your state representatives now.

You may have seen it on TV: a person sends a round stone sliding down an ice surface, then two people sweep furiously in front of the stone as it approaches a target at the far end of the ice. The sport I’m describing, of course, is curling, and I recently had the opportunity to give it a try.

On a Saturday morning in February about a dozen of us traveled south to a curling club in Owatonna, Minnesota. Steve McKelvey, an experienced curler and a mathematics professor and dean at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota, generously organized the outing as a way for people to learn about the sport.

We began by gathering in the comfortable warming area of the small club, where Steve gave us a primer on the game. He informed us that curling probably began in Scotland hundreds of years ago. The sport is especially popular on the Iron Range of northern Minnesota and in Canada’s prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. The St. Paul Curling Club, founded in 1888, boasts that it is the largest member-owned curling club in the United States.

A curling match involves two teams of four players each. They take turns in a series of rounds called “ends,” in which each player throws (slides) two stones. The stones really are made of quarried stone, and at 42 and a half pounds each, they’re quite heavy. A match usually consists of eight ends.

Teams win points by having their stones stop in the targeted area at the end of the ice, called the “house.” A team receives one point for each stone that is closer to the center of the house than any of the other team’s stones. Stones can be bumped from the house by other stones.

Teams alternate in the delivery of stones, and the team that goes last has an advantage called “having the hammer.” They get the last chance to knock the other team’s stones out. The team that has the least number of points gets the hammer for the next end.

The person that delivers the last stones for a team is usually the best player. The “skip,” as this person is called, also directs the other players in the placement of their stones. The “curling” part of the sport comes into play when a player “curls,” or curves, the stone by giving it a slight spin left or right when it is delivered.

According to Steve, curling is “a game of character and honor.” For example, all fouls are called by the person committing them. Both teams treat each other with respect, and players avoid celebrating the other team’s errors or misfortunes. The winning team even has to clean the ice at the conclusion of the match.

After our primer, we progressed to getting familiar with the ice and the movement of the stones on it, sliding the stones back and forth across the narrow width of the club’s two curling lanes. The ice surface itself differs from a typical skating rink. It’s altered by sprinkling drops of water on it, which somehow allows the stones to slid more easily and therefore farther.

We then practiced sliding the stones the length of the ice. Delivery of a stone begins by putting a foot in the “hack”–a wooden block similar to a starting block on a running track. Holding onto the handle of the stone, you then push off from the hack, slide on the ice, and release the stone–all while in a crouching position close to the ice. Curlers wear special “sliders” made of plastic on their feet to allow them to slide while delivering the stone. We also practiced sweeping. The purpose of sweeping is to slightly alter the ice surface and allow the stone to slide with less resistance.

As we played an abbreviated version of a match, I managed to become somewhat competent at delivering the stone. It reminded me a bit of throwing a bowling ball, though curling involves the more difficult task of sliding on ice. I found it difficult to get the range down and managed to get only one or two stones to stay in the house. Others in the group had similar difficulties, as stones usually went short or long. Most of us ended up losing our balance and sprawled on the ice at least once as we practiced our delivery.

Curling reminds me of shuffleboard and lawn bowling or bocce ball, games that more people are familiar with. All of these games involve getting objects close to a target, and they include the option of bumping the other team’s objects out of the way or using the object to block those thrown by the other team.

I enjoyed my curling experience, though my middle-aged knees hurt afterward because of the crouched position required when delivering the stones. Also, I didn’t wear warm socks, and my feet got very cold from standing on the ice.

As I warmed my feet on the stove in the warming area and the circulation painfully returned, I was reminded of similar experiences in warming houses long ago as a hockey-playing kid. The next time I go curling, I’ll definitely wear wool socks.