Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public veto referendum held Nov. 4.  Another loss of gay marriage rights could have a profound effect on the gay rights movement in the United States.

Over half of the voters cast their ballot to repeal a state law that would have granted same sex couples the right to wed, a statute passed by the legislature in May and signed by Democratic Governor John Baldacci.

The campaign against same sex marriage in Maine mimicked the controversial effort in California last year, where Proposition 8 overturned a state Supreme Court ruling allowing civil unions. In fact, Maine voters were exposed to nearly identical TV commercials and attack ads that were used to campaign against gay marriage.

One such ad featured parents lamenting that their children were being taught about same-sex marriage in school, an ad which was sponsored by groups lead by Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the same firm who directed media relations for anti-gay marriage groups in California. Maine Attorney General Janet Mills rebutted the ad’s claim, saying that Proposition 1 would have had “no impact on education curriculum taught in Maine’s public schools.”

In many ways, this comes as no surpirse. Los Angeles Times reporter Bob Drogan commented that Maine would be unlikely to break traditional rules against gay marriage, as voters have repeatedly rejected measures for anti-discrimination protection based on sexual orientation.

But that tide seemed to be changing when voters approved a referendum granting the protections and equal opportunities for homosexuals in housing, employment and other areas in 2005. But  it seems when left up to the voters, a state that went heavily to Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election isn’t really ready for change.

Maine’s vote to repeal a law that gives couples of the same sex the right to marriage is nothing but oppression of the majority. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 10 that a large representative republic protects against individuals or groups who might promote their own goals in spite of the interest of society as a whole.

Maine and California’s response to to gay marraige exemplifies how our representative government has failed. Those who were elected to represent the interest of their constituents, to make laws that would benefit society as a whole, were overruled by the few.

The state and national supreme courts were created to be the final interpreter of the constitutionality of laws, and yet it was the public who voted against the ruling the court made. How is representative government supposed to function as it was intended if the public, who the government represents, is unable to uphold the laws they enact for the benefit of society? What would happen if we had left civil rights reform up to the states? Jennifer Schrauth, the secretary of the St. Edward’s University Democrats, believes that the goverment should have acted in its proper role: knowing what is best for its people.

“[The government] must step up and say homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else,” Schrauth said. “Ultimately, those rights need to be granted by the federal government so that they are the same and equal in every state across the United States. Separate but equal is not equal.”

In America, heterosexuals who enter into marriage receive tax write offs, discounts on medical care, education and home loans, the joint filing of tax returns and more. Without marriage equality, those who are in a same-sex relationship are denied these basic rights. Separate is not equal and everyone, including gay and lesbian couples, should be treated equally under the law.