The ballot measure had sought to ask voters whether the state’s Constitution should be amended to ban same-sex marriage. Illinois law prohibits same-sex marriage, but referendum supporters said they were concerned that the courts might overturn the law if the Constitution was not changed.

The referendum’s supporters filed a lawsuit in federal court, saying the state’s procedures for placing a referendum on the ballot were burdensome and unconstitutional.

The link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/us/13illinois.html?
ex=1156132800&en=cb269a94d0f99f82&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

In Washington's case, I am discouraged by what I call a setback; however, as a supporter of full marriage rights for all people, I am not defeated.  I don't know how a high court cannot see this as a civil rights issue, and not the religious issue so many paint it as.

In Illinois' case, I am glad the rules for putting a referendum on the ballot are cumbersome.  Do we really want all kinds of crazy ballot questions each fall?  I agree with both candidates for governor that constitutions should not be tinkered with unless absolutely necessary.