The Christian Civic League of Maine may blame intimidation for stymieing its campaign to repeal equal rights laws, but its downfall was more from its support, not its opposition.

Equal rights proponents had no better weapon against the league than the league itself, as it was its fiery rhetoric – not scare tactics from equality groups – that made its crusade unpalatable.

The league’s virulent tone was out of step with Maine voters. The irony is the league’s core issues – equal rights, gay marriage, etc. – are now, given California’s recent decision, important for Maine to consider.

Maine is one of 41 states that defines marriage as between a man and woman. But it is one of a handful, however, that recognizes the legal standing of domestic partners for issues of joint property, benefits and estates.

Oregon, Hawaii, Washington state and Washington, D.C., are the others. Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New Jersey allow civil unions. Massachusetts alone allowed same-sex marriages, until California did so last month.

For states, this hodge-podge creates many legal questions. Writing for Stateline.org recently, Christine Vestal spun the scenario of a Kansas same-sex couple, driving home from their California wedding, getting injured in a Colorado car crash. Which state’s laws would prevail? Which would not?

It’s a conundrum. In Maine, same-sex marriages and civil unions lack legal recognition. State law is silent on their presence, fulfillment, or dissolution inside the state.

Eventually, courtroom challenges will answer all outstanding questions. But Maine lawmakers can and should address the issues surrounding civil unions and same-sex marriages before they do.

So far, dissolving two Vermont civil unions in Maine – including one between two Lewiston men – needed lawsuits. This seems a high cost in court time and effort, when having a clear statutory process would be wiser.

Lawmakers cannot just address dissolution of civil unions or same-sex marriages for Maine residents, however, without considering their legal standing while united.

Using Maine’s domestic partner protections as a foundation for couples joined in civil unions or marriages seems the fairest way. This would neither create privileges for same-sex unions, nor incite debate over legalizing them.

In short, it would remedy a legal problem, before it arrives.

Though the league’s campaign failure is telling, it was not a mandate to re-consider Maine’s laws on marriage or civil unions. Maine cannot insulate itself from changing laws elsewhere, though.

But it can, and should, react accordingly.