The Push Back Begins:Health Care Freedom in Virginia

Well here’s another example of the 10th amendment in action as the founding fathers intended and federal nullification because of another  overbearing unconstitutional  bill possibly coming from Congress/Senate. Arizona has also done the same thing with their Arizona Health Care Freedom Act , as well as Kansas with their Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment. The health care vote yesterday is far from the end of things – and  even when it passes the Senate (which I assume some version will), it’s still not the end of the road for freedom.

The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.

Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.  It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition.

Better yet, we expect to see 20-25 states considering legislation to effectively ban national health care in their state in the 2010 legislative session. That same number of states has been able to effectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implemented without ever being repealed or challenged in court.

The bottom line?  If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.

No more marches on Washington – they don’t work.

And on the 2nd amendment we have Tennessee,Montana and now Kentucky passing their Firearms Freedom Acts. These things happening is making me believe what the Russian man said several months ago now I am starting to believe may com true. “Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S by Civil War breaking it up into six pieces”.

Health Care Freedom in Virgina

The Campaign for Liberty has stepped to the plate big time in Virginia, getting out ahead of the feds and finding a sponsor for the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, to be introduced in 2010.

The Act reads, in part:

Neither the Governor nor the Department of Health, the Department of Public Welfare or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy that would compromise the freedom of choice in health care of any resident of this Commonwealth.

Man, just copying and pasting that feels great.

Delegate Bob Marshall (VA-13) deserves credit for agreeing to carry this critical legislation. Now is the time for Virginians to start contacting their state representatives to inform them about the measure and ask for their support should ObamaCare make it out of the Senate.

Credit is also due to Delegate Charles Carrico (VA-5), who has agreed to carry the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act, which is similar to recent measures adopted in Tennessee and Montana.

In marked contrast to the health care “reform” legislation recently passed by the House, neither of these bills exceeds three pages.

This is great news for those in Virginia who still cling to the Constitution, but introducing these bills is just the beginning. Victory will require inexhaustible passion and energy since, as always, we must give our state legislators the courage to defend our freedoms.

And it will take political courage. Nancy Pelosi has already said that even if such measures pass at the state level, the federal government has the authority to impose its will upon the voters anyway. (No they don’t!) Then stick us with the bill, of course.

Try finding that one in the Constitution.

Thanks, but no thanks, Nancy.

Like the signs say: We’ll keep our money, guns, and freedom; you keep the change.

TenthAmendmentCenter.com

TSA changes procedure after Ron Paul supporter incident

Transportation Security Administration screeners at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport probably wish that the fellow they chose to grill last March about a box of cash wasn’t a Ron Paul devotee who runs a committee devoted to individual rights and constitutional government.

But grill Steven Bierfeldt they did, and eight months later the incident has yielded revised rules requiring TSA agents to stick to matters related to flight security rather than policing airports for other crimes.

Bierfeldt and the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented him in a lawsuit, announced in a news release this week that the TSA had changed its rules in response to the litigation.

“It’s a huge victory for civil liberties that TSA agents no longer have free rein to conduct sweeping, baseless searches and detain passengers who don’t pose a threat to flight safety,” Bierfeldt said in a statement.

A TSA spokeswoman, Lauren Gaches, acknowledged to the Washington Times on Tuesday that the policy with regard to cash had changed but declined to release copies of directives. The newspaper quoted her as saying that the TSA “routinely assesses its policies and screening procedures to ensure the highest levels of security nationwide.”

Last spring, a TSA blog post defended the questioning but concluded that “language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate.”

A later blog post referring to “the St. Louis incident” says that “the tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate, and proper disciplinary action was taken.”

Bierfeldt said he was ushered to a small room and questioned after passing a metal box containing $4,700 through a Lambert screening checkpoint. He said the cash related to his job as director of development for the Campaign for Liberty, a lobbying group that sprouted from the presidential campaign last year of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican from Texas.

Bierfeldt said he was interrogated for a half-hour in an increasingly threatening manner and told he was being placed under arrest. He recorded audio of the episode on his iPhone.

Bierfeldt’s suit contended that the TSA’s pre-flight screening should be aimed at keeping weapons and explosives off airplanes.

Before it was due to be heard in September, the ACLU said the TSA issued a policy directive stating that “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.”

The government agency responded in October with a second directive pointing out that transporting large amounts of cash is not illegal, the release said. The ACLU added that it is taking steps to drop the suit on Bierfeldt’s behalf.

StlToday.com

Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment

Well here we go with another state attempting to break away from the an overbearing and the unconstitutional actions of our federal government.

Jefferson once wrote, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” To resist this centralizing trend, Jefferson was convinced, the states needed some kind of corporate defense mechanism, nullification.

In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment.  Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement?  Kentucky.  Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”

While the FFA’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:

“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

NULLIFICATION

(When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.)

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010.  Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.

“For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states,” said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. “The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen’s right to bear arms isn’t the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration.”

“Enough is enough,” urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. “Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”

LITIGATION

In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA.  It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA.  Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country? (I think it’s a conflict of interest to take it to a federal court, just pass a state law nullifying the federal authority in your state.  Actually IMO the states don’t need justification from federal courts, the states just need to tell the federal government they don’t recognize or authorize their authority to regulate gun control in their state based on nullification of that federal law in their state. The state legislature can pass such a law and nullify the federal authority from what I”ve read and heard. Check out additional info here.)

The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus – federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005.  Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.

Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.

TenthAmendmentCenter.com

George Soros Calls for World Currency and “New World Architecture”

Just a few years ago people like Steve and I that talked about the New World Order were considered “nut cases”, now it’s out in the open even by the elites.

In a shocking Op-Ed piece published Thursday on project-syndicate.org, globalist financier George Soros calls for a “New World Architecture”. In his essay, he states how international capitalism, led by the United States has “broken down” and how “A new multilateral system based on sounder principals must be invented” through the use of the IMF (International Monetary Fund)(the United Nations of course). Soros goes on to recommend SDR’s (Special Drawing Rights), created by the IMF, as a replacement for the declining US Dollar,

“The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did… The US ought not to shy away from wider use of IMF Special Drawing Rights. Because SDRs are denominated in several national currencies, no single currency would enjoy an unfair advantage.”

The issuance of SDR’s among the world economies would place all currencies on a level playing field, whose value would be determined by the international SDR.

Soros also calls for the United Nations and its Security Council, currently led by President Barack Obama,( in direct violation of the U.S, Constitution), to serve as the overseeing enforcement body for this new financial system,

“Reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations, especially membership of the Security Council. That process needs to be initiated by the US, but China and other developing countries ought to participate as equals…The system cannot survive in its present form, and the US has more to lose by not being in the forefront of reforming it.”

In the most troubling part of this his article, Soros calls public outcry over the declining economy and outrage against globalism, “populist demagogy” and eludes to a new U.S. led war overseas stating, “In fact, democracy is in deep trouble in America. The financial crisis has inflicted hardship on a population that does not like to face harsh reality…If Obama fails, the next administration will be sorely tempted to create some diversion from troubles at home – at great peril to the world.”

Read Soros’ article here:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/soros52

Experts downgrade worst case swine flu scenarios

As many countries are downgrading H1N1 to a mild flu, when is the US going stop it’s fear mongering and follow suite? Finland did this months ago, Australia had only around 6% of the predicted deaths from H1N1, The UK had predicted 65,000 death, then downgraded that to 19,000 and now it says around 1,000 will die. So why is the United States still hyping up the “pandemic death toll” talk still? I would guess MONEY for their pharmaceutical buddies. Because we have learned most wealthy western counties are signing secret contracts with the pharmaceuticals that’s what the hype is about over here still. We don’t know a lot about the contracts because guess what? They’re secret, but we do know they exist in France and Poland because it was leaked.

//

Experts curb worst case swine flu scenarios

The 2009 swine flu pandemic may turn out to be the weakest in history. It is spreading more slowly than expected and the latest figures show a flattening, or even a dip, in new infections. It is mild in most people but severe in a few and, while it readily infects children, it appears to spare the elderly. With the vaccine being rolled out – more than four million doses have already been delivered – its impact should be further curbed.

So far in the UK, 154 people have died from the virus, around half of whom were under 45. In addition, 1,431 were admitted to hospital with swine flu last week. But in comparison with previous pandemics – or even seasonal flu epidemics – this is a relatively low toll.

In July, shortly after the World Health Organisation declared the first flu pandemic for 40 years, Britain’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, published a worst-case scenario suggesting the country should plan for up to 65,000 deaths.

That planning assumption has since been revised downwards twice, as further information about the behaviour of the virus has become available. In September the “worst case” was cut to 19,000 deaths, and in October it was cut again to 1,000 deaths. This compares with an average annual toll of 4,000 to 8,000 deaths from seasonal winter flu. In the last epidemic in 1999-2000, there were 21,000 deaths.

Previous pandemics have had higher death tolls. In 1918 Spanish H1N1 flu claimed an estimated 230,000 lives in Britain and up to 40 million worldwide.

In 1957-58, Asian H2N2 flu caused 1.5 to 2 million deaths worldwide and 33,000 in Britain. That was followed a decade later by Hong Kong H3N2 flu in 1968-69 which caused an estimated one million deaths worldwide of which 30,000 were in Britain.

So far, 2009 “novel H1N1” flu has caused 6,394 deaths worldwide, of which 154 have been in the UK.

Doctors say the key difference with seasonal winter flu is that it does not normally kill the young. Swine flu is worst among the under-fives, as happened in all three 20th century pandemics. The hospitalisation rate for the under-fives is four times higher than in older age groups. Pregnant women are also vulnerable. Experts say that even if the death toll from swine flu turns out to be significantly lower than in previous pandemics, it may feel worse.

Dr Steven Field, chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said: “I thought the original predictions for the number of deaths were incredibly high given the mildness of the illness we were seeing. Hospitals are coming under pressure but because the care is so good fewer people are dying.”

Dr Laurence Buckman, chairman of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee said: “The original government masterplan was for a maximum of 250,000 dead. But that was based on avian flu. It became clear that swine flu did not pose the same risk and slowly it has become clearer that it poses less and less risk. Compared with those earlier assumptions it is looking pretty tame.”

Independent.co.UK.com

Obamacare Declared DOA in Senate

Well let’s hope this article is true, because regardless of what a lot of people think we don’t need a government run healthcare system in the US.

ObamaCare legislation in trouble

Not so fast.

President Obama’s victory dance yesterday for the House-passed health-care bill came as Senate foes — mainly Republicans with one key Democrat moderate — pronounced the measure mortally wounded, if not outright DOA.

Speaking from the Rose Garden after the squeaker 220-215 Saturday-night vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and “take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people.”

Instead, he met with immediate resistance.

If a government plan is part of the deal, “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome a GOP filibusters, told “Fox News Sunday.”

Lieberman said he was concerned about new government spending the health-care legislation would entail, saying deficits have gotten gargantuan.

“I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” declared, “The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.” ( Graham went on to say….“The public option will destroy private health care. Nobody in this country in the Insurance business can compete with the government sponsored plan where the government writes the benefits and the politicians never raise the premiums. It  will be a death blow to private choice and all of these bills depend on reducing Medicare by $500 billion over the next 10 years.  Seniors are not going to like that, it’s unnecessary.  I just feel like the construct coming out of the House and what exists in the Senate is not going to pass and I hope and pray it doesn’t because it would be a disaster for the economy and health care.”)

“It was bill written by liberals for liberals, and people like Joe Lieberman are not going to get anywhere near the House bill . . . It is a nonstarter in the Senate.”

He said he firmly believes “the public option will destroy private health care.”

The House-backed bill would expand coverage to nearly all Americans and bar insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.

But in the Senate, moderate Dems have balked at Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan for a public option, an insurance plan run by the government rather than private companies.

Reid (D-Nev.) has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.

Democrats have no margin for error: They control exactly 60 seats in the 100-member Senate.

The overhaul would lead to the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion health-care system — which accounts for one-sixth of the US economy — since the 1965 creation of the Medicare government health-insurance program for the elderly.

The House vote was a vital victory for Obama, who staked much of his political capital on the health-care battle.

A loss in the House could have ended the fight, impaired the rest of his legislative agenda and left Democrats vulnerable to big losses in next year’s congressional elections.

NYPost.com

House Call on Washington by Tea Partiers

In the video you can’t see Mark Levin, but you can hear him very good.

Tea partiers descend on Capitol Hill

The Tea Party holds no seat in Congress, but at least 10,000 of the party’s members descended on Capitol Hill Thursday to rally against a Democratic-written health care overhaul.

A plan first hatched and heralded on FOX by iconic conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) grew over the weekend as she e-mailed with a handful of colleagues. By the time activists started arriving at the foot of the Capitol around 8:30 a.m., it was clear no Republican leader could stay away.

Minority Leader John Boehner, Republican Whip Eric Cantor and Conference Chairman Mike Pence all spoke.

Inside, Democrats were working to finalize a trillion-dollar health care bill that they say will deliver insurance to tens of millions of Americans who currently lack it, improve the quality of care and rein in costs both for individuals and the government.

Outside, on the grassy lawn just steps from where Barack Obama took the oath of office, an endless lineup of rank-and-file lawmakers and conservative All Stars – Bachmann, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, actor Jon Voigt and Mark Levin, author of “Liberty and Tyranny” – demanded that the health care bill be torn asunder.

“Madam Speaker, throw out this bill,” bellowed Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

“Oh come on, tell them how you really feel,” Bachmann yelled to the crowd from a temporary podium at the foot of the Capitol.

“Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!” the crowd replied.

UPDATED: John Tanner undecided on House health care bill vote this weekend

For those readers that haven’t heard how John Tanner or other representatives voted on the unconstitutional health care bill you can see all the votes here. John Tanner did the right thing and voted against the bill.

Here’s a letter from John Tanner’s office after calling him on health care. See what you think about his response. I know what I think.

Dear Mr. Davis:

 

Thank you for contacting our office to share your concerns with H. R. 3962, the health care reform proposal considered in the House. I have met with or heard from thousands of Tennesseans, who, like you, opposed the current legislation and others who supported it.

I continue to believe that reform of our country’s health care delivery system is needed and that all Americans should have access to affordable, quality health care. However, after careful review of the current legislation and the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, I believe the bill will not help control the long-term costs of health care and puts in place an infrastructure that is not fiscally sustainable over time. Therefore, I was unable to support H. R. 3962.

There are many good things in this bill. We should continue our health insurance reform efforts to ensure that no one can be denied health coverage because of a pre-exiting condition and to end the insurance companies’ ability to cancel coverage when someone becomes ill. And, we simply must slow the upward curve of health care costs.

Despite my vote in opposition, H. R. 3962 passed the House by a vote of 220 to 215. The Senate is expected to consider a version of health care reform legislation in the next several weeks. Should the Senate pass its version, a House/Senate conference committee will be required to work out the differences in the two versions. Once a conference agreement has been reached, the House and Senate both will have to vote on that compromise. I plan to continue to work hard to produce a better and more cost-efficient bill that we can all support.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please continue to contact me on issues of concern to you in the future.

Sincerely,

John Tanner, M.C.

Tennessee Congressman Tanner undecided on House health care bill vote this weekend

The House will begin debate on the 2000+ page, $2.4 Trillion health care bill on Friday… and plans to vote on the bill Saturday evening. (11-07-09)

According to both the Washington D.C. and Jackson, TN offices of Congressman John Tanner, Mr. Tanner is currently “reading and reviewing the bill” and has not made a decision as to how he will vote on Saturday.(Give John Tanner a call and help him make that decision to vote against this bill or vote for it and take a chance on losing his seat in the next election.)

Rep. Tanner voted against the original bill in the Ways and Means Committee. Please call and email the Congressman and encourage him to do the same this weekend!

Congressman Tanner’s office: (202) 225-4714

You can send an email from the form at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option

Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats’ healthcare reform bill an amendment that would automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.

The effort, spearheaded by Reps. John Fleming (La.), Joe Wilson (S.C.), Wally Herger (Calif.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.) and Steve Scalise (La.), would bar lawmakers from participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which they currently use for health insurance. Instead, members would have to rely on the Health Insurance Exchange and the public option plan House Democrats are proposing in their latest healthcare reform effort.

“If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] and her Democratic counterparts truly believe that their government insurance option is the best way forward for healthcare in the United States, then they should be fully supportive of amending the bill to ensure that every single member of Congress, both in the House and Senate, is enrolled in it,” explained Rep. Gingrey, who is leading the new campaign.

thehill.com

Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg’s compensation limits on private companies unconstitutional

I’m glad someone else sees this as well………..

Pay Czar compensation limits unconstitutional

Many Americans think it’s great that somebody in the government is finally doing something about excessive executive pay. The recent forced pay cuts for executives at AIG, Bank of America and other companies that accepted TARP money strummed a populist chord and brought many cheering to their feet. (They are not trying to apply this to companies that didn’t even get TARP money……the government can’t do that!)

In the meantime, Barney Frank and others in Congress have proposed expanding federal oversight to companies that never took any government money. They argue that the feds should exert control over any company that may pose a “systemic risk” to the U.S. economy. (What? ….this is a free market system…..not communist!)

This represents a huge overstep of government power and a threat to basic liberty. Pay regulations place the government between employer and employee, destroying the sanctity of the  private contract.

The founders of the United States understood the threat to liberty posed by a powerful government and devised a system of checks and balances to limit federal power. The Obama administration circumvents these checks by utilizing “Czars” appointed by the President without Senate confirmation or oversight.

Obama is not the first president to utilize “Czars”. The Bush administration had them as well. But the power wielded by these unaccountable appointees continues to grow. Unconstitutional actions by previous administrations do not justify the continuation of those policies and certainly shouldn’t spur us to expand such practices.

Michael W. McConnell, a law professor at Stanford University Law School and a former federal judge, wrote an outstanding piece on the constitutionality of the “Pay Czar.”

“The power to set compensation at large American businesses is especially subject to potential abuse, favoritism, arbitrariness, or political manipulation. It is no reflection on Kenneth Feinberg, who has a sterling reputation and who appears to have approached these sensitive duties with a spirit of commendable integrity, to say that the checks and balances of the Constitution should be scrupulously observed. They were not. Because he is not a properly appointed officer of the United States, Mr. Feinberg’s executive compensation decisions were unconstitutional.”

Examiner.com

Maine voters latest to turn down gay marriage

Well the same sex marriage amendments continue to play out state to state as they should under the Constitution and Maine becomes the 31st state to vote for traditional marriage with a man and woman as the people let their voices be heard. The minority had their chance and lost. One more agenda that is being crammed down the American people’s throats that they don’t want.

PORTLAND, Maine (Reuters) – Voters in Maine on Tuesday overturned a law allowing same-sex couples to wed, dealing a fresh setback to the U.S. gay marriage movement in a race that attracted national attention.

The law was approved by Maine’s Legislature in May but was not implemented after opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue to a “people’s veto.” (Every time the people get a chance to vote, they vote same sex marriage down)

With 87 percent of precincts reporting, votes to reject the law were running at 52.75 percent to 47.25 percent, according to unofficial tallies from the Bangor Daily News.

Frank Schubert, chief organizer of the “Yes on 1″ campaign to reject same-sex marriage in the state, claimed victory early on Wednesday, although his opponents refused to concede.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are the only U.S. states where a same-sex marriage law is on the books. In each instance, the laws were approved by legislatures and judges, not by popular vote.

Citizens in some 30 states before Maine voted against same-sex marriages.

The referendum in sparsely populated Maine was thrust onto the national stage, attracting large levels of funding and battle-hardened strategists.

The outcome is “further evidence that although voters have shown tolerance toward same sex couples, they draw the line at marriage,” said Jeff Flint, a partner with Schubert Flint Public Affairs in Sacramento, who worked on California’s “Yes on 8″ campaign in 2008. “They feel marriage is different.”

Groups in favor of traditional marriage prevailed in Maine even though they were outspent two-to-one by the “No on 1″ groups, Flint said.

Reuters.com