It is interesting to watch the unfolding of the equal marriage issue down in the States. The politics of the issue take on quite a different tone to what we went through a couple of years ago here in Canada.

While our situation was certainly polarized, with equality advocates and/or gay rights activists on one side and, usually, the Christian Right and various shades of social conservatives lined up on the other, the move towards equal marriage wasn’t as fraught with the level of reaction it seems to have in the US.

Of course, there was reaction here in Canada, and often quite nasty stuff as evidenced by many of the comments made at the various committees that travelled across Canada seeking input on the issue from Canadians. Such bizarre statements as “the next thing they’ll want is to marry their dog” or “Homosexuality used to be illegal and now it’s not...who’s to say incest won’t be made legal?” Nice stuff.

Down in the US the approach has taken a slightly different tact than what we saw here.

We heard the frightening idea, put out no less than by a sitting President, to alter the Constitution of the United States to specifically deny rights to an identifiable group. Luckily that harebrained scheme of Bush’s went nowhere.

What concerned me about the idea was not so much Bush going after the gay and lesbian population, as upsetting as that was. What was scary was the idea of being able to alter a document - designed to protect the civil rights of the population from the encroachments, on a host of levels, of a powerful government - so that a blatant act of discrimination could be defended as being “constitutional.” He came pretty damn close to pulling it off, too, which is even scarier.

In Canada, marriage is divided between federal jurisdiction and provincial. The provinces decide how a marriage is to be carried out, the licensing of the marriage, etc. The feds decide who can marry and who can’t, essentially. When equal marriage finally became legal in Canada, it was at the federal level. The responsibility of the provinces, despite a couple of renegade premiers who figured they would just prove a point or two about the division of power in this Confederation of ours, was to implement it.

Down in the US, individual states have far more autonomy from Washington than our provinces do from Ottawa. In short, the American political system is quite different from the Canadian model, although we do share some similarities. It can be argued the US engages in a more aggressive form of democratic process than we do in Canada. Every public office, for instance, is by election (anything from State Governor, to judges, to sheriffs, to the local dog catcher).

Since so many of the American states enjoy a high level of autonomy, an interesting picture emerged as some states, such as Massachusetts and, later, California, and a couple of others, declared in favour of equal marriage/legalized same-sex unions. Meanwhile others went so far as to alter their state constitutions to declare marriage to be only between a man and a woman (previously the wording had been along the line of “two people” with certain conditions applied such as not being close blood relatives).

A few months ago, California allowed same-sex couples to marry; not just declare a “civil union,” but actually get married. Several high profile Californians, along with many ordinary lesbian and gay couples, tied the knot.

Those opposed to equal marriage were not happy...and certainly not undefeated since they placed a plebiscite called Proposition 8 to a vote.

Proposition 8 was a measure which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman and sought to amend the state’s constitution to reflect that. It passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

The amendment strips previously legally-married couples of their status and disallows further same-sex couples from marrying. It a major blow for equal marriage and civil liberties advocates and, it can be argued, is a major interference by the State in the personal lives and decisions of Californians.

The only option now is legal action...and this is expensive and time-consuming. Possibly one or two gay rights organizations could take such a legal challenge on, but even that is doubtful as money is historically tight in such groups, even at a national level. At a state or local level? Such an action is little more than a vague dream. For individuals to launch such an action is virtually impossible, given the costs involved.

What was surprising and unexpected was the way in which visible minorities voted. An estimated 70 per cent of African-Americans and 53 per cent of Latinos voted in favour of the Proposition. In a nation with a history of racial division, as well as divisions along class lines, this could prove to be yet one more log to a sometimes out-of-control fire.

Much of the anti-equal marriage rhetoric was couched in such a way as to reflect the rhetoric of segregationists in the 60’s. Several political commentators have wondered how the black community could not have seen the connection and been critical of it.

Canadians for Equal Marriage was criticized three or four years ago when it issued a print ad showing Straight Only and Queer Only drinking fountains and park benches; a direct reference to the White Only and Black Only drinking fountains and park benches in pre-civil rights America.

Again, an argument can be made that it is culturally insensitive, exploitative, or just “not right,” to make reference to unrelated past harms to highlight an existing one; in this case comparing homophobia and opposition to same-sex marriage to racism and anti-integration. While all oppressions share a common root, and it is fruitless to engage in ”my-oppression-is-greater/more-hurtful-than-yours” arguments, I think it is important to be aware of exploiting others’ oppression to bring attention to our own.

However, when the opposition uses language which blatantly reflects the beliefs of segregationists and a population that was, and continues to be, directly affected by that issue does not speak out against it and, in fact, then votes overwhelming in favour of the proposition, it is a cause for concern.

It remains to be seen if having Barack Obama, a man some have criticized as being so liberal as to border on socialist, in the Oval Office and the Democrats back in power makes a difference on such elemental issues of equality. Or whether his administration believes they can learn anything from how Canada does things.