We could almost hear the collective groan around the state when opponents of the state’s new anti-discrimination law, which was ratified by voters Tuesday, said they would continue their fight – with a changed focus on preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Anti-discrimination – commonly called gay rights in this context – has been an issue in the state for almost a decade. It has gone before voters three times. Twice it lost; on Tuesday, state voters decided that it is wrong to allow discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation.

But as much as proponents of the anti-discrimination law would like to say the issue is settled, it’s time to move on, that’s not really the case.

In a democracy, issues are never really settled. The conversation – the debate – continues. Every election is an opportunity for one side or the other to make progress, to undo what has been done, to continue the struggle.

During the campaign this year to overturn the anti-discrimination law, which was wrongly characterized as a precursor to same-sex marriage, advocates for a yes vote often argued that the question had already been decided by voters. They said that the Legislature and Gov. Baldacci were going against the will of the people by passing a law that had been rejected two times already.

The argument does not recognize the ever-changing nature of politics and policy, which are constantly evolving. Voters are not static. They change their minds.

Take abortion. Supporters of abortion rights – and politicians looking to avoid a controversial issue – often say the issue is a matter of settled law. But that’s far from accurate. The debate over abortion continues in every state in the union and on the federal level. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, states have chipped away at the absolute right to an abortion. Restrictions – such as parental consent and waiting periods – have been legislated. Anti-abortion politicians have sought to undermine access to abortion and many, if given the opportunity, would reverse Roe.

Some of the very same people who argued that the issue of gay rights had been settled in Maine also argue that they have the right, the obligation in fact, to work to change abortion laws.

Or consider Social Security. Despite the program’s enormous popularity and success in reducing poverty among the elderly, conservative politicians attempted this year to alter its fundamental structure. They were unable to gain any significant traction, but the debate about a government-backed pension and insurance program has continued since the New Deal.

There is no guarantee of progress in this country, only the promise of change. Be it abortion, civil rights or economic policy, few issues are ever settled. No political win or loss is ever permanent. For the supporters of the state’s anti-discrimination law – and count this page in that group – vigilance will be required to make sure the state doesn’t backslide on the issue. For opponents, there will be other elections and new chances for victory.

Otherwise, the country would find itself locked in the past, unable to right past wrongs, to adapt to new challenges, to grab new opportunities.