Same-sex marriage was the topic of an extraordinary hearing at the State House Tuesday night when members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees were urged on the basis of fundamental moral values to do diametrically opposite things.

The committees had called the hearing to allow members of the public the chance to express their views on the issue. Rep. Thomas Little, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, urged speakers at the hearing to focus on steps they thought the Legislature should take. As they did so, many speakers on both sides of the issue made clear their views were based on religious faith and questions of essential morality.

What is a legislator to do? He is told by one speaker that according to God's law, expressed in the Bible, homosexuality is a sin and same-sex marriage would be an abomination. He is told by the next speaker that divine compassion demands that we treat everyone with respect and that gays and lesbians deserve the right to marry.

Each legislator will have to make up his or her own mind. It is important to remember, however, that our legislators are elected, not to represent a specific religious denomination or to impose a personal moral code. They are elected to represent all the Vermonters within their districts and to follow the secular code embodied in our state constitution and laws. Indeed, our secular democracy is broad enough to allow for the legitimacy and freedom of the diverse and opposing religious viewpoints that were on display Tuesday night.

As legislators have learned on issues such as abortion, the difficulty comes when an issue is so charged with moral significance that political compromise seems to some like moral capitulation.

Supporters of abortion rights say they do not impose their views on anyone by advocating for legal abortions: People who believe abortion is wrong do not have to have an abortion. Nor should they stand in the way of people who do not share their view.

An atmosphere of tolerance, therefore, allows people to make their own choices about what they believe is right. For opponents of abortion, however, tolerance is a cover for state-sanctioned wrongdoing. And because they believe abortion is wrong, they have sought to enact laws putting their own views in the place of the moral laissez-faire that allows individuals to choose what is right or wrong.

On abortion rights some political leaders have been able to rise above the personal to discharge their political duty with the whole of their constituency in mind. Liberal Catholics such as Sen. Patrick Leahy and former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York have recognized that, even if they believe abortion to be wrong, many others believe otherwise. Freedom of choice thus becomes a way for people to find their own morality.

On the question of same-sex marriage, legislators are faced with another question of choice. The Supreme Court has told the Legislature that the Vermont Constitution requires that same-sex couples have access to the benefits enjoyed by other couples. And it is clear that if the Legislature fails to act, the court will impose its own solution.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to form either marriage partnerships or domestic partnerships is simply a way of bringing the law into conformance with the constitutional requirement for equal treatment. It is beyond the power of the Legislature to resolve the moral differences that exist today about gay and lesbian relationships and will continue to exist even after same-sex partners gain legal recognition. Those moral differences are for all Vermonters to wrestle with in the privacy of their spiritual domain.