After two massive public hearings, the House and Senate Judiciary committees have been well-educated on the moral viewpoints guiding those who support and oppose same-sex marriage. The Vermont Legislature will never reconcile the clashing moral absolutes of the two sides. The task now left for the Legislature is a political one.

To transform a fundamental moral question into a political question may seem to partisans on both sides as a corruption. But even leaders of the civil rights movement had constantly to gauge when, where and how hard to push for rights they knew they deserved. The question of how to respond to the Supreme Court's requirement that same-sex couples be granted the benefits of marriage is a moral question that now requires a political response.

The depth of opposition to same-sex marriage is broad and profound. And it is not easy as easy to counter that opposition on moral grounds as it was to counter racism in the civil rights era. The views of many opponents are shaped by ideas of sexuality taught by their religions. These moral teachings, even if one disagrees with them, have a legitimacy that racism does not have.

This opposition creates a political reality that supporters of same-sex marriage cannot ignore. The Supreme Court left the resolution of the question to the political arena, and though the court found that the Vermont Constitution required equality for gays and lesbians, the constitution, too, exists in the political arena.

The Legislature has before it a variety of options, including a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage must involve a man and a woman only. It is unlikely that two-thirds of the Senate would approve such an amendment. But supporters of same-sex marriage must consider the possibilities. What if opposition grows so fierce that same-sex marriage becomes an important election issue in November? It is possible that legislators approving same-sex marriage or domestic partnership would be thrown out of office. A new Legislature might have different ideas about a constitutional amendment.

The people ultimately determine what the constitution says, and it is the constitution that is the foundation of the Supreme Court's decision in the Baker case. That is why supporters of same-sex marriage cannot ignore the politics of the issue.

In the aftermath of the two public hearings at the State House, it is hard to know what the broader public believes on the issue. Gov. Howard Dean has pointed out that the advocates on both sides were the ones motivated to turn out in Montpelier in the dead of winter. He and others are still hoping that a middle ground can be found.

In fact, Vermont is a liberal state with a record of tolerance and respect for human rights. In a recent poll it was only a narrow majority of Vermonters who disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision.

As the discussion moves forward, Vermonters will increasingly get used to the idea that the state has a responsibility to treat fairly those among us who are gay and lesbian.

The problem facing the Legislature is that the two dimensions of marriage - as a civil partnership and as a religious institution - are not separate in the minds of many Vermonters. Getting a marriage license is not the same as getting a driver's license. This fusion of the civil and the sacred has filled the State House with uncommon emotion.

Rep. Thomas Little and Sen. Dick Sears, chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, have done a good job maintaining the atmosphere of decorum and respect required for this debate. As our political leadership considers the political dimensions of this highly charged moral issue, that atmosphere will be all the more crucial.