Maine Gay Marriage Referendum: Results, Updates

*****CHECK BACK HERE TONIGHT FOR RESULTS*****

***UPDATE 10:14PM*** Early returns show the vote is close:

Gay marriage was put to a vote in Maine on Tuesday in a closely watched referendum that gay-rights activists across the country hoped would prove for the first time that their cause can prevail at the ballot box.

Voters had to decide whether to repeal or affirm a state law that would allow gay couples to wed. The law was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.

Early returns showed a close contest, as had been forecast. With 70 of 608 precincts reporting, the gay-marriage side had 53 percent to 47 percent for the other side.

A vote to uphold the law would mark the first time that the electorate in any state endorsed gay marriage. That could energize activists nationwide and blunt conservative claims that same-sex marriage is being foisted on states by judges or lawmakers over the will of the public.

However, repeal - in New England, the region of the country most supportive of gay couples - would be another heartbreaking defeat for the marriage-equality movement, following the vote against gay marriage in California a year ago.

---

Gay marriage was put to a vote in Maine on Tuesday in a closely watched referendum that gay-rights activists across the country hoped would prove that public opinion is turning in their favor. Turnout has been higher than expected, which analysts say favors supporters of same-sex marriage.

Voters had to decide whether to repeal or affirm a state law that would allow gay couples to wed. The law was passed by the Legislature last May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.

A vote to uphold the law would mark the first time that the electorate in any state endorsed gay marriage. That could energize activists nationwide and blunt conservative claims that same-sex marriage is largely being foisted on states by judges and that the public is not ready to embrace the idea.

However, repeal -- in New England, the region of the country most supportive of gay couples -- would be another heartbreaking defeat for the marriage-equality movement, following the vote against gay marriage in California a year ago.

It would also mark the first time voters had torpedoed a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians rejected same-sex marriage, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[CanadianinCleveland]

01:15 PM on 11/04/2009

Shame on those in Maine who fell for the religious rights propaganda machine...
Once again, hijacked by those hate mongers who want to control and enforce their beliefs on all of us...
sound familiar??? and we are off fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan???
Come on, Already...
they are right here... and flourishing with victories like this.
We need a federal administration who are not afraid of standing up to this religious B.S. and get change passed so that all tax paying citizens have Federal and State rights (REPEAL DOMA NOW)....and who truly want to represent all the people who voted them in!
A good start would be to lift the tax-exemptions of religious organizations who have ANY ties whatsoever to getting this petition and vote started....
It is sickening....
Sooner than later, my American partner and I are heading back to Canada and getting married.. (federally recognized marriage laws and benefits in Canada are for all citizens... )
It seems change in the U.S.A. in the 21st century is so bogged down... and we are sick of waiting.

[rhurc]

07:06 AM on 11/04/2009

Gays have the right to marriage. This whole debate is over what the definition of marriage is! As a religious term, traditionally, it has always been defined by religious organizations. Why would homosexuals want to enter into a religious ceremony with each other? How about we push the government to no longer recognize religious relationships all together instead of setting one group off against another by attempting to have government redefine their religious institutions?

[MooMoo123]

12:23 AM on 11/05/2009

Agree on the last point, disagree on the first.

Contrary to what many people may think, religion (and particularly, Judeo-Christian religions) does not hold a monopoly on the institution of marriage. After all, many eastern Asian countries, completely isolated from western influences, had married couples as well. In particular, I need only point out that polygamy used to be the norm, not the fringe, in many areas, and that marriage used to solely be a political/social contract (with wives as property), in order to show that whatever people consider "traditional" about marriage exists solely in the mind.

What we have now is "heterosexual monogamous panracial panreligious consensual terminable gender-equal marriage" at the federal level (a good comment I found on 538), and that's only been applicable since 1967, with Loving v. Virginia. And therefore, I take issue with people referring to "traditions" and whatnot, especially since "tradition" is a moot argument in a courtroom.

[1dogs2]

06:15 AM on 11/04/2009

Had segregation been put to a popular vote, Jim Crow would still reign in this country. Only a decision by the S. Ct. will establish the right of gays to marry. As the Court is presently constituted, that's unlikely to happen, since 6 of the 9 justices are Catholic, 5 of whom are very conservative on social issues. Consider the implications of the Red Mass that they attend at the beginning of each term. Even if DOMA were repealed, an unlikely event in itself, the right of gays to marry would exist only in those states in which the right was legislatively or judicially established and in which the issue is not put to a popular vote by means of referenda.

This is going to take another generation to accomplish. In the meantime, there have to be legislative initiatives to guarantee that equal rights are extended to civil unions.

[MooMoo123]

12:33 AM on 11/05/2009

"In the meantime, there have to be legislative initiatives to guarantee that equal rights are extended to civil unions."

This won't work (or at least is prone to reversal) so long as the ballot initiative process exists that requires absolutely no constitutional checks. I mean, just look at Referendum 71 in Washington state (which thankfully, seems like it will pass). Same-sex marriage in Maine was legalized through the legislature (and governor's signature)...all it takes is a group of ordinary people with no background in law or politics to coerce other "concerned citizens" into reversing it.

The process itself is well-intended in theory, but in practice, you see abuse through the initiative process all the time. It completely undermines the job of the legislature and courts if we can simply dictate what we want through initiatives...isn't that more demonstrative of a direct democracy, rather than a three-branch constitutional republic?

[1dogs2]

08:14 AM on 11/05/2009

Can't disagree with your point. And the trouble with a "direct democracy" is that the rights of minorities are subject to the tyranny of the majority.

[funinthesun]

03:11 AM on 11/04/2009

I will buy the anti-marriage arguements of the YES on Marriage side if I thought they lived by their own rhetoric. If you truly want to protect marriage, and feel children should have only a mother and farther then you should be all be behind outlawing divorce , outlawing single parents, and prohibit infertile and post menapausal women from getting married since they can't procreate.
At the same time let's vote on on a proposition that will only confer full marriage rights to one's first marriage .

[AmbientDiscord]

01:41 AM on 11/04/2009

the AP is reporting yes is winning with 53% of the vote with 87% of precincts reporting so it doesn't look good.

it depends how many votes those other precincts have. if we have any chance at this point.

it's amazing how the far-right can drum up a vote. regular people need to be convinced to get up off the couch and go put these fear-mongering idiots in their place.

[luvobama]

01:38 AM on 11/04/2009

I am going t get a petition started tomorrow. i want to ban homely and heavy people from getting married. THOSE kind of couples threaten the sanctity of my marriage. I think only good looking and fit people should be allowed what I have. Please don't tell me that f at people are born that way. Besides, I like to spend my time thinking about gr os s people doing it. Because it makes me uncomfortable, I would like to vote to take their rights away. Looks like the south will all be living in sin.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

12:50 AM on 11/04/2009

Maine No on question 1 people put up a heroic fight, but the HATERS won.
NOM and a Cardinal I won't mention, ......this ain't over.
and you P*SSED OFF the wrong families.
Your Yes donors will find out what MASSIVE Boycott feels like.

[bornagainatheist]

11:17 PM on 11/03/2009

I'm still waiting to hear how a same-gender marriage affects my hetero marriage? Any takers? I just don't get it...

[Ventura Co California]

12:26 AM on 11/04/2009

How does polygamy hurt anyone's marriage?

[brklynivn]

12:49 AM on 11/04/2009

How does polygamy hurt anyone's marriage? Answer the question.

[brklynivn]

08:48 AM on 11/04/2009

No answer of course! The fact is it doesn't effect your marriage, even if it sounds like you're unhappy in yours and need to take it out on everybody else.

[Ventura Co California]

12:33 AM on 11/04/2009

It's always hard to explain why you want to open up Pandora's box when another side questions you, the same way you've been doing the questioning.

[California8]

12:45 AM on 11/04/2009

cosigned

[brklynivn]

12:55 AM on 11/04/2009

What pandorra's box? If gay marriage is legalised you're going to drop your wife? I don't get it.

[isee61]

11:10 PM on 11/03/2009

We the people are asked to choose whether their should be gay marrige in every state in the union, and when when we give our opinion, some of the population want to call the other names becasue some didn't choose the way others wanted them to.

if you don't want our opinion or vote, stop asking us to vote, because, frankly I'm tired of the who damn thing.

I'm a Christian and proud of it, If no one asked for my opinion or vote I wouldn't give it. Then I wouldn't have to have someone call me names.

I don't beat people up with the bible and quote scripture. I just use my one vote to do my talking. take it or leave it.

[empiricalWeb]

11:45 PM on 11/03/2009

We never asked.... The law was passed at a legislative level.. Gay Marriage is LEGAL in Maine. But the Catholic bigots and homophobes forced the issue to a vote....

BTW, I'm a 23 year old straight male.

[luvobama]

12:03 AM on 11/04/2009

We have NEVER asked you to vote on our lives. EVER. I am a straight, married mother of 4. It's the religious creeps in our society who keep putting this on the ballot.

[Gidster]

01:19 AM on 11/04/2009

Co-Sign!

What other minority group has their rights put to a vote?

Put taxing churches to a vote! If they want to be so darn politically active, let them pay to play like the rest of us!

[Zed Oud]

10:29 PM on 11/03/2009

I wasn't always against gay marriage as so many other conservatives have been.
.

Oh you want an explanation.
The second someone thought the words "Gay Pride..."

Just keep it quiet and get the civil marriage and bla. The gay [pride] movement has only made it _worse_ for gays and the gay community bringing to light unbased hatred and even some spatters of objective criticism and real Evangelical resistance. The only real advance they made was the stealthily placed gay Hate Speech law recently signed.
{the above is a series of objective (or as much as possible so) claims, I invite rebuttals and argument}

[luvobama]

10:57 PM on 11/03/2009

SPAM

[Gidster]

01:20 AM on 11/04/2009

I am so sorry tr0ll that the prosecuting of crimes motivated by hatred of someones sexual orientation offends you....
Does that take away your freedom of religion to beat up some gay kids?

[Zed Oud]

02:40 AM on 11/04/2009

Oh no you miss understood ( I wish I could sound condescending, but I'm typing, am I not?) my point. Let me help you. *end condescending*
While I like the basis of the Hate Speech Laws, in practice they are hard to carry out, as the only legal and effective way for one to prosecute using them is for the [potential] victim to carry an audio recording device at all times, anything else would either miss a crucial time or would be considered eavesdropping.

I had to read your comment a couple of times but I think I've narrowed down its possible meanings to this: that I'm offended by the passing of this stealthily tucked away Hate Speech law.
I'm not. It's actually a good thing. It is always better to, if given the choice between the safety of a group and its persecution (physical actions against the group like violence, or separation/isolation) whether it's someone who doesn't deserve it (gays) or someone who does (and even then it must be carefully considered, take the controversial matter of capital punishment,) to verge or just side with the side of safety.

So I'm not sure HOW you got that SUBJECTIVE opinion (that I supposedly hold,) but I would be more careful when analyzing an statement meant as an objective argument and avoid appealing to, well, I'm not sure what that is, I think that was a straw man argument.

[sski74]

10:01 PM on 11/03/2009

If the gay marriage bad is lifted (hopefully), this sends quite a message to Ms. Olympia Snowe.

[rhurc]

07:07 AM on 11/04/2009

message not sent.

[sski74]

09:30 AM on 11/04/2009

So sad. The only good thing out of this, it shows her that her constituent base is much more liberal than she. They can vote her out with those numbers. Pretty disappointed in the voter turnout all over the country. People are dying (literally) for the right to vote and people here just take it for granted and are too lazy. Yet, they are the first ones to complain.

[JaneBeasley]

09:36 PM on 11/03/2009

All marriage are Civil Marriages, which is different than church doctrine.

* If you get married in a church, you still have to get a civil license first
* if you get married by Elvis, it may be the little chapel, no religious affiliation and just as legal
* people who are not "socially accepted" get married all the time.
* no matter that the Civil Rights Act passed, it didn't stop people from mainting their own prejudice - it only meant they couldn't hurt others with it.

From a civil perspective the point is moot and being debated in a religious content, while it's a matter of civil liberty.

Take the Catholic church as an example. They can deny a religious ceremony to anyone who isn't a member, however it does not prevent the couple from obtaining a civil marriage, which is what provides the civil benefits associated to the civil marriage license. On the back end, the church does not approve of divorce, again, that does not prevent couples from obtaining a civil divorce, or void of their civil marriage contract. If they want the dis-union to be recognized by the church, they can go through the annulment process provided by the church.

[rextrek]

09:43 PM on 11/03/2009

very good comment and to the point!

[luvobama]

09:27 PM on 11/03/2009

I would like to give a shout out to all the very nice gay people here this evening, for giving ZenDiagram the gay attention he is seeking. It is a very sad state of affairs when a grown man cannot live who he truly is. Someone, perhaps himself, has convinced him that who he is, is a choice. He is obviously struggling with that choice every single day. At least today, he is getting the attention he so longs for. Thanks guys.

[obama20082012]

09:25 PM on 11/03/2009

If you are against gay marriage don't marry one!

[carsntrucks]

10:44 PM on 11/03/2009

If you're against rape, don't rape anyone!

[AmbientDiscord]

11:09 PM on 11/03/2009

you can't force someone to marry you. the definition of rape is a sexual assault against the other person's will.

[brklynivn]

08:50 AM on 11/04/2009

Rape is an act of violence like robbing someone, that applies even in a trailer park...

[MasterAdrian]

09:12 PM on 11/03/2009

I think it is total moronic that once LAWMAKERS and thus people's REPRESENTATIVES have created a law, the sme people are allowed to vote pro or contra that law!

Why elect representatives when they are not allowed to create laws in your name?
What are representatives for? To REPRESENT, and work on behalf of!

Once a lawmaker (or representative) has vote pro or contra a proposal to law, and you as the one who elected him or her into the position of being your representative, the next time he or she is up for elections YOU re-elect him or her, or don't, THAT is democratic!

Not letting them make laws, and then putting their decision to the popular (often bought) vote!

BTW, I am PRO EQUAL MARRIAGE!
(that means that everyone should be able to marry whomever he or she wants! Without exclusion, bigotry, hate or racial reasons!)

[MooMoo123]

12:43 AM on 11/05/2009

And thus, you see the problem with the initiative process. If everyone was well versed in the US Constitution, or had a deep understanding of law and politics, then by all means, let's have a popular vote and a direct democracy.

Go out and sample a hundred people, and see how many people know that there is a 14th amendment, let alone know what's in it.