In November, North Dakotans will vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  Here at the Herald, we’ve been seeking a position that acknowledges two essential elements in a democratic society: Individual rights and the importance of families.

Our search leads us to oppose the amendment.  Here’s why:

There’s no clamor for gay marriage in North Dakota.  State law already forbids it by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  The amendment therefore is not necessary.  This reasoning prevailed on the national level, when Congress passed a Defense of Marriage Act and turned down a constitutional amendment.

It’s true that in some states, the courts have preempted this process.  The danger of that is slight in North Dakota, for two reasons.  First, our courts inherently are more conservative than the activist courts in states such as Massachusetts.  Second, our constitution is easily amended by gathering signatures, having them validated and holding an election.  The process takes a few months at most.  In Massachusetts, the process is cumbersome and requires several years.

These are not trivial matters.  They create an entirely different judicial climate that voters ought to take into account.

That said, amending the constitution still is a serious step.  It ought to be taken after thoughtful reflection.  There hasn’t been time for that.

There is undeniable logic in the argument that committed couples should be entitled to equal protection and equal benefits.

There’s also wisdom in the argument that society has an interest in promoting heterosexual commitments as the basic structure for child-rearing.  Strong families are intrinsically valuable.

The gay marriage amendment touches on sexual behavior, individual rights and religious belief, all fundamental parts of the human make-up.

There must be a way to protect individual rights while encouraging family responsibility.  Passing this constitutional amendment will make it more difficult to find.  That it is the reason it should be defeated.  No doubt individual voters might find other reasons.  No doubt many voters will reject that reason.

The nature of democracy is that no voter need tell any other what is in his or her heart.  Newspaper editorial boards are an exception.  After some soul searching and much discussion, the Herald’s editorial board ends up opposing the amendment – but narrowly – because it seems to us that the issue is not urgent and that good public policy needs more time.

This may strike some as a middle ground.  We see it as clearing a space in which to pause while we chart the right course.  Passing the amendment cuts away the possibility of finding the formula that satisfies two deeply held American values, individual rights and family values.

For that reason, a “no” vote is the better course.

- Mike Jacobs for the Herald