Civil Discussion of Same-Sex Marriage

In case you haven't been following how the issue of same-sex marriage has unfolded in Canada, I begin with a brief (and no doubt slightly off) history. After the history, I'll highlight a number of points which has allowed the discussion on this highly charged matter to remain civil and principled, and not subject to emotional manipulation of the citizenry.

Over the past few years, several provincial Supreme Courts -- Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, and most recently Saskatchewan -- have handed down opinions which have claimed that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates a basic human right. The Ontario court has also ruled that the now married same-sex couple can divorce as well. These cases were headed for the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court had ruled on any of these, it would have been prescribing the law of the land. Rather than end up in a situation where the courts were making laws of such moment, the Prime Minister's office put a series of four questions to the Court, to pave the way for legislation to come forward before Parliament.  The court ruling last week made it clear that it was appropriate for legislation to come before Parliament on the matter of same-sex marriage, that any law must be civil only and not constrain church or other religious practice. The court refused to answer a question which asked whether not changing the definition of civil marriage constitutes a rights violation. After the ruling, Paul Martin (Liberal Party, Prime Minister) said he would be putting forward legislation in January when Parliament reconvenes. Ralph Klein (Conservative, Alberta Premier) called for a national referendum. All four major party leaders have quashed Klein's proposal. My question: What are the key ingredients that make the ways the issue has played out in Canada and the US so different?
A beginning of an answer:

The provincial rulings framed the issue in terms of human rights, and this is exactly how the media reported the rulings. There were some pictures of happy gay and lesbian couples, but there was sober rather than sensationalistic reporting.

Given the growing trend at provincial rulings, the federal government took the reigns on the issue and, after a period of soul searching, came out clearly on the side of human rights. Paul Martin's waffling angered some, but I think his honest and principled handling of the situation was wonderful. Martin was raised a Jesuit and still attends church and had personal qualms about same-sex marriage. But he took his role of PM seriously, and very eloquently spoke about how human rights considerations overrides his personal beliefs. This perspective gives others with similar issues a clear way of thinking through the issue for themselves.

The Federal Supreme Court did not legislate from the bench. They did not take up the provincial cases, and the refuses to rule on a hypothetical case. Instead they articulated unanimously a commitment to human rights, and a commitment to balancing this with freedom of religion.

The Federal government is taking responsibility for setting a national standard before the issue becomes too divisive.

The federal parties are united in rejecting a call for a public referendum (compare the 11 votes in US states in November). Here are the reasons:

 Stephen Harper (Conservative): "We haven't been demanding a referendum"
Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois): "We are speaking of rights. These must not be submitted to a referendum. A society has to be exxcessively vigilant of the rights of its minorities."
Jack Layton (NDP): similarly, he claimed that it is wrong to submit a question of rights to a majority vote in a referendum.
Paul Martin: "I think this is an issue that parliamentarians ought to decide. The courts have now given their direction. I think its one for Parliament and I think that Parliament ought to accept their responsiblity."

I see a respect for the legal process and court decisions, I see a fundamental respect for human rights and a clear articulation of those rights as an overriding principle. I see a government taking its responsibility seriously, and not overreaching its authority. I see a clear articulation of what is the proper role of a legislature (over the subjects for referendum) and I see a rational and measured discussion of an issue that is difficult for many. And I see non-sensationalised reporting. What do you see?