In that curious American way the population is getting itself tied in knots over a social issue that hardly registers on most countries' radar screens. The blogosphere being a very US-centric place has the usual pounding of outrage for and against gay marriage. The merits of the issue are not the purpose of this entry. What is far more interesting is the manner of debate itself.

The cliché goes that the USA is a polarised society. Half in favour, half against everything and anything. Almost every issue boils down to being pro or anti. One thing that appears rare in American discourse is shades of gray. A nuanced position takes time to understand and explain and it is hard to put into a sound bite for TV. Everyone can understand extremes; the middle ground is harder. More difficult again is the lumping of such issues into buckets. American politics is divided between Democrats and Republicans but each party covers a broad range of views. There are economic conservatives who are socially liberal, and social conservatives who are economically liberal. The neat duality of politics is in fact an exercise in compromise. How much of your various positions are you prepared to ignore in order to find a candidate or party that matches your overall stance, your broader philosophy? Perhaps in times past, when a lack of mass media meant issues were not much of a concern of the masses, having a simple choice worked. These days it doesn't. Voters are smart enough and informed enough to have opinions on everything. The age of instant everything means making a decision quickly and not necessarily based on facts. Human nature makes a view, once taken, next to impossible to change. Rhyme or reason cannot influenced a closed mind.

So debates denigrate into two opposing groups shouting talking past each other, rather than listening and addressing each point in turn. Choosing between two sides that represent a collection of compromises is a pretty crap system. Unfortunately it's the best one we have. It avoids deadlock between the competing points of view and somewhere in the mess progress can be made. But it means great swathes of voters can feel disenfranchised and powerless because no-one's representing "them".

Let's compare the USA to its political peers - by this I mean economically advanced democracies. Effectively this is Europe, the UK, Australia, NZ, Canada. In plenty of other countries outside this group gay rights aren't even a factor, let alone gay marriage. That's for another time. Why is it that these social issues become such huge political debates in the USA but barely register in most other countries? I contend it is because the USA is the most federal in its structure - it is really a collection of 50 mini-countries (the states). Its peers are far more socially homogenous. That's not to say each of these other countries don't have social issues that spark widely diverging views and debates. But social issues are not as politically contentious in these countries because there is a broad consensus on dealing with them, even if that consensus is it is none of the Government's business or that the status quo is fine. Many of these issues are so far removed from the average punter's life that it just doesn't matter. Each country finds a solution it can live with and moves on. It is part of America's fabric that such issues are part of the daily political (including judicial) battlefield where even past decisions are constantly fought over vigorously. Furthermore America is an adversarial society partly because of the strength of its democracy. That people can disagree so violently without coming to blows or worse (Jerry Springer aside) is a testament to that fact. The status quo doesn't exist in America like it does in its peers.

It is part of what makes America such a troubled and great country all at the same time. It is a mess of compromises and contradictions that sum to a much great total than the parts.