[altair]

This is state law, not federal law. Whatever the good citizens of Maine have worked out for themselves is OK for me.

Propositions in California tend to be annoying because nearly always the only proper vote is HELL NO.

I don't believe that it's the federal government's place to have any say in gay marriage (or abortion), but I applaud the election results in Maine. Marriage is between a man and a woman and abortion is murder. It's just that it's up to state law to enforce that.

/highfive to the voters in Maine.

[indianrightwinger]

I am from CA. Really supported prop 8 YES vote. I voted YES on it. In CA, it was done by judicial fiat. So, a referendum was the only recourse.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I don't believe that it's the federal government's place to have any say in gay marriage...

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."