I have to respectfully disagree with your insinuations about the "creepy" vote in Maine. Voting against gay marriage is not to impose values. It is not to make gay marriage illegal; it is just to say that gay couples should not be given government entitlements. (The Unitarian Church, for instance, has been performing gay marriages everywhere since--I think--1960.)

Marriage is a civil society institution that arose independently of the state, but now of course the state seeks to co-opt it. But the trinkets that the state offers to married couples--hospital visits, tax breaks, etc.--are without merit because the state had no right to deny hospital visits or take one's tax money in the first place, and so by repealing such intrusions we could solve the problem of unequal treatment without messing with the civil society institution of marriage.

Finally, when the state decides to recognize gay marriage, it will have to make allowances for local officials to marry gay couples, since all the new marriages will be civil ones. This will necessarily require an increase in government spending. So for this reason alone, any libertarian who follows the non-aggression axiom should oppose gay marriage legislation.

I think this is a matter of semantics- I wholeheartedly agree with marriage privatization though I personally agree with the Kinsella a position in the interim.