It’s no great revelation that we live in a highly polarized country, one where neighbors can see the world in starkly different terms.

We Americans often rely on different sources of information, different leaders, different value systems, and we often lead starkly different lives.

People living in different parts of our republic have profoundly different expectations in terms of their professional potential, how much education they will receive, how long their will life, and on and on.

But rising steadily through all that heterogeneity is a new trend:  the re-emergence of starkly different public policies that set apart one state from the next.

It is now possible to live in states where a legal and safe abortion is almost impossible to find, while in the state just next door abortion services are still readily accessible.

It is now possible to live in states where as a gay person you are free to marry, with all the legal and civil rights that entails, while in the state next door your union goes unrecognized, or is even constitutionally banned.

It is now possible to live in a state where the legal rights of labor groups and unions remain robust and widely recognized, while a neighboring state has rejected the idea of collective bargaining rights.

It is now possible to live in a state where undocumented workers are largely tolerated and even accepted as a necessary component of the economy, while in the next state the laws affecting those workers (and their employers) are ferociously strict.

It is now possible to live in a state where the public education system offers an essentially conservative world view (including the suggestion that Creationism is a legitimate “science”), while in a neighboring state the education ideology remains progressive and humanistic.

We appear to be moving toward a future where some states will have adopted truly universal healthcare (Vermont is leading the way here) while other states challenge the fundamental constitutionality and philosophical appropriateness of such programs.

It may sound confrontational to put it in these terms, but I think it’s fair to say that we are evolving toward a Union where the differences between states are very nearly as stark as they were when Jim Crow existed in the South.

Many Americans, when offered jobs or opportunities in different states, will have to think long and hard about the policies and laws that shape life in other parts of the country.

If a person has a child with a handicap or developmental disability, does the new state offer adequate support and help?  What if the couple is gay and has adopted a child, or has entered into marriage?

Will they be safe, in legal terms, in their new community?

On the other hand, a person running a business in a weak-union state might have to think long and hard about the realities and complexities of opening a new branch in a part of the country where organized labor remains a powerful force.

New York state has taken us one more step along this path toward national divergence with this week’s same-sex marriage vote.  But I’m guessing that it won’t be the last step in that direction.

Here’s the statement from Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward (R-Willsboro)

“Today the New York State legislature became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.  I am proud to have been a part of the movement to bring equality to all loving couples in New York State.  I understand first hand the struggles gays, lesbians and their families have faced over the years.  History will record June 24 as the day New York State voted to end discrimination by granting same-sex couples the right to marry.”

State Sen. Betty Little, meanwhile, issued the following statment:

“I voted against the measure, but agreed with my conference that a vote needed to be taken.  We live in a representative democracy.  The citizens have a right to know where their representatives stand on this and any other issue.”

Just a little while after close of business today, Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos has finally announced Senate republicans are sending the same-sex marriage to the Senate floor for a vote.  Here’s the text of his statement:

“After many hours of deliberation and discussion over the past several weeks among the members, it has been decided that same sex  marriage legislation will be brought to the full Senate for an up or down vote.

The entire Senate Republican Conference was insistent that amendments be made to the Governor’s original bill in order to  protect the rights of religious institutions and not-for-profits with religious affiliations.  I appreciate the Governor’s cooperation in working with us to address these important issues and concerns.

As I have said many times, this is a very difficult issue and it will be a vote of conscience for every member of the Senate.”

The bill could come up for a vote tonight.

Albany is down to the wire this week on a wide range of issues and one of the biggest is same-sex marriage.  The state Senate is one vote away from a deal that would make New York the sixth state in the country to approve gay marriage.

This morning’s newspapers offer sort of the two faces of what this debate is about.  The one side looks and sounds like a reasoned debate among civilized people.  This from the AP via the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.

Will the Knights of Columbus be required to open their halls for gay weddings if New York lawmakers legalize same-sex marriage?

Will Catholic adoption agencies be forced to choose between placing children with gay couples or leaving the business?

As New York moves closer to a vote on legislation that would make it the sixth and largest state to allow same-sex marriage, some Republicans want stronger legal protections for religious organizations that object to the practice.

That, I think, is a pretty reasonable conversation to be having, especially in a state like New York where religious institutions — from hospitals to drug treatment centers to job programs — are often run by religious groups.

What happens when a gay couple wants services from such an organization?  And what happens if that organization is using taxpayer funds?  Can they still choose not to serve gays or lesbians?

(I actually think this part of the discussion needs to be broadened.  What happens if a taxpayer-funded religious group chooses, based on their beliefs, to deny serve to anyone, on grounds of race or religion or sexual orientation?)

As always, it’s a bit dodgy that Albany has left these questions until the last minute, but that’s the way things work in New York state.

But it’s only fair to point out that there’s another side to this debate, one with a much uglier face.  The Press Republican is reporting this morning that Clinton County legislator Sam Trombley from Ellenburg uncorked a doozy of a rant this week against gay couples.

“You don’t see two male dogs sleeping in the same dog house together,” he said [during a public meeting].  “It blows my mind to think of it.”

Trombley went on to describe gay couples as diseased, suggesting that “we are going to have an HIV epidemic if this passes.”

I think it’s hard to dismiss the fact that this kind of bald-faced Jim Crow style bigotry fuels a lot of the opposition to marriage equality, in New York state and around the country.

According to the Press Republican, Trombley suggested that New York state has better things to do with its time than debate the civil rights of the human beings he he describes as diseased dogs.

But I think his comments prove that this is exactly the right time to have this discussion, both in our homes over the dinner table, in our churches and other places of worship, and in our civic forums and legislature.

This is a tough subject, so please keep it civil and thoughtful.