Ever since the Supreme Court issued its ruling on same-sex marriage in December, it has been clear the state's political leadership hoped to forestall the wrath of the people by pursuing the option of domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

The House Judiciary Committee took that step on Wednesday, deciding by a vote of 8-3 to support domestic partnerships as it begins the job of drafting legislation.

Supporters of same-sex marriage are disappointed, reasoning that any option short of marriage treats gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. But the president of a group opposed to same-sex marriage had a different view. In describing why she also opposed domestic partnership, she said: "If it looks like marriage, acts like marriage and talks like marriage, it's marriage."

Domestic partnership ought to look like marriage. It could even be connected to marriage. The Legislature could provide that one of the means of securing legal standing as domestic partners would be a marriage certificate from one of the religious faiths now willing to marry same-sex couples.

In choosing to pursue domestic partnerships, the committee is aware of the disappointment that will be felt by those who believe that treating heterosexual and homosexual couples differently creates a stigma. The sting of that disappointment may be lessened by considering the pluses and minuses of each approach.

It is likely that either domestic partnerships or marriage would satisfy the substance of the demand by the Supreme Court that same-sex couples receive benefits equal to those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Marriage, however, would go further than domestic partnerships, granting a victory of principle and using the imprimatur of the state to erase the stigma attached to same-sex unions.

But the stigma, at least in some people's minds, won't be erased so easily. Resistance to same-sex marriage among Vermonters is widely felt and deeply ingrained. Some of it is grounded in homophobia, ignorance and fear. Some of it is grounded in good faith differences about sexuality and marriage.

The court left the burden of choice to the Legislature. By opting at this stage for same-sex marriage, the Legislature would bequeath to gay and lesbian Vermonters the equal benefits they seek and a victory of principle, plus an atmosphere of exaggerated bitterness and hate. By opting for domestic partnerships, the Legislature provides the benefits, minus that victory of principle, but minus also the bitterness.

There will be bitterness in the fact of compromise. But a domestic partnership law should be seen as a vehicle for eliminating inequity rather than as a vehicle for imposing discrimination. Laws creating separate schools for African-Americans were a ruse designed to perpetuate discrimination. Vermont's domestic partnership law could be a wedge to open up the laws for greater equality.

Compromise on a matter of principle is harder if one believes one's opponents are absolutely wrong. But if one can accept the fact of honest differences, then compromise is more palatable.

On the idea of gay marriage legislators would be hard-pressed not to recognize a wide divergence of views, honestly arrived at, among Vermonters. For them to ignore those differences would leave them open to charges of arrogance, and they would be vulnerable at the polls.

Political survival, of course, should not be the highest priority when it comes to matters of principle, but the perception of arrogance could lead to a destructive backlash.

The brilliance of the ruling by Chief Justice Jeffrey Amestoy was that it allowed the people themselves to address head on these questions of politics and principle as they resolve the issue of same-sex marriage. The House Judiciary Committee has made a conscientious start.