In the left-hand column I’ve added “Selected Entries,” which I’ll use as a guide to my favorite or most popular posts. Often these are longer, more ambitious entries.

Despite my comments earlier regarding Google and its actions supporting censorship in China, I’ve decided to include Google Adsense ads on Northern Letter. A friend whose opinion I respect suggested that doing so was unlikely to affect what I write. He pointed out that Harper’s magazine includes ads from oil companies and regularly criticizes those same companies.

I was convinced enough by his arguments that the ads are now there. Of such compromises life is made. We must beware too much compromise, however.

I’d like to inquire of readers whether they think I should use Google’s Adsense ad program or not. I want to get some revenue from this blog eventually, since I’ve put substantial content on it and would like to more easily afford to do so in the future.

Read the rest of this entry »

Well, Northern Letter has now moved to its new location at my own web site, williamostrem.net. I opted to go for the greater flexibility of this option rather than using Wordpress.com.

I’ll be updating the categories and tending to other aspects of Northern Letter in the coming days. I’m assisted in that effort by badbrain computers, a computer services and web hosting/design firm located in my hometown of Northfield, Minnesota, and owned by Rob Brown. Special thanks to Rob for helping to get Northern Letter set up. With technical help such as that provided by badbrain, this can be a better blog than if I tried to do it all on my own.

This column (or blog as I’ve finally begun to call it) has been on Blue Mag since September 2004, but changes are afoot. Blue Mag is tightening its focus to concentrate on its features, which is appropriate, I think, and I’ve been thinking about going independent too. As a result, Northern Letter will be moving to a new location soon.

It’s been fun to be part of Blue Mag and to learn more about its publisher Don Zacharias and Rooney and others. Blue Mag has really allowed me to dip my toe into blogging and writing for the web. Special thanks go to Don for encouraging me and spending lots of time on the technical stuff. I hope I’ve been able to bring some extra traffic and attention to Blue Mag.

I’m excited about the new possibilities before me and look forward to embracing the blog format with more gusto. Heretofore I’ve regarded this as more of a column, old guy that I am. That being said, I won’t entirely forego long entries.

If you’ve appreciated Northern Letter, please leave a comment or email me at william.ostrem at gmail dot com. Let me know if you think it should be on a site like Wordpress.com (the probable choice) or on a hosted server (giving me more control). See you out there somewhere on the web!

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.