By Jesse Ellison

Yesterday, Mainers turned out in unexpectedly high numbers to vote yes on 1, which actually meant voting no on gay marriage. Voting yes to say no wasn't the only thing that happened that might confound those watching from out of state. Despite making a socially conservative choice on gay marriage, voters made the fairly liberal decision not to limit state government spending, and an almost radical move to expand and regulate the distribution of medical marijuana. Together, it doesn't seem to make much sense.

So what happened? Opponents of same-sex marriage waged essentially the same campaign run last year in California, with endless television ads claiming that not repealing gay marriage, which Democratic Gov. John Baldacci had signed into law in May, would mean that it would be taught in school. One of them showed a forlorn-looking couple from Massachusetts claiming that since their state had legalized same-sex marriage, "our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys.  He's in second grade." In another, a Maine teacher implored voters to "vote yes on Question 1 to prevent homosexual marriage from being taught in Maine schools." The state attorney general publicly disputed the claims, but there's no question that they were effective.

Not unexpectedly, and perhaps more important, poll results also show that votes fell sharply along an inland-coastal split. Liberal enclaves along the coast generally voted overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage, while inland, more rural areas voted against it. The split reflects a much deeper divide. And here's where things get delicate. Generally speaking, southern, coastal residents are wealthier, more liberal, and better-educated. Inland, rural areas, particularly up north, tend to be poorer, more conservative, and religious. Throughout Maine, there is a certain wariness of people who are "from away" (meaning another state), but that's especially true inland. It's not surprising that voters there would be more reluctant to change, particularly if that change is perceived as being driven by outside forces. One of the ads that ran encouraging voters to choose "No on 1" included an ominous line about "outsiders" trying to make gay couples feel ashamed—seemingly directed squarely at the voters most likely to vote yes.

But Mainers also voted 60-40 against putting spending limits on state and local governments and requiring voter approval of tax hikes, and for expanding access to and distribution of medical marijuana, both relatively liberal positions. Taking a socially conservative stance on one issue and a liberal one on two others says more about the state as a whole than it does about any internal divide. And politically, Maine is nothing if not independent. The standard notions of "conservative" and "liberal," "Republican" and "Democrat" simply don't apply. Since 1974, the state has had three independent governors; the last time any other state had an independent governor was Oregon in 1930. And Maine's current senators are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republican women known for their unwillingness to conform strictly to party lines. Last month Snowe was the sole Republican senator to vote in favor of a Democratic health-reform bill.

So if there's any explanation, it's simply that Maine (which, full disclosure, is where I was born and raised) is an odd little state at the end of the earth that refuses to conform. If the choices voters made there yesterday don't make sense, you're probably just from away.