The Vermont House of Representatives took a courageous step Wednesday in giving preliminary approval to a bill providing for civil unions between same-sex couples.

The events of the past two and a half months have been an example of extraordinary lawmaking. Republicans and Democrats joined together to respond to a constitutional mandate. The confidence of their own convictions ought to serve as their best shield against criticism. The swift, sure action they have taken ought to serve as the best protection against the deep division that a protracted conflict would create.

Two people stood out in the debate that preceded the vote Wednesday evening. One was Rep. Thomas Little, the Shelburne Republican who shepherded the bill through the House Judiciary Committee and to the floor of the House. His reasoned, low-key approach to the task kept the debate focused and properly restrained. His conviction in the rightness of his course can only have helped to stiffen the courage of fellow House members.

The other was Rep. William Lippert, a Democrat from Hinesburg, who spoke before a vote was taken, defeating an amendment that would have diluted and weakened the bill.

As Lippert began to speak Wednesday, the House fell silent. Lippert, who is gay, spoke with dignity and with passion. He began by saying it was important for his fellow House members to understand reality.

Gay relationships, he said, are in some ways "miracles" because they manage to take shape within an atmosphere of unremitting prejudice. He asked his fellow House members to imagine how difficult it would be for them to form lasting relationships in such circumstances. He said gay relationships represented a "triumph against discrimination and prejudice."

Lippert said that until two and a half months ago he believed Vermont had made great progress in guaranteeing gay rights. But in the last two and half months, he said, "I have been called names in this chamber and in this building the likes of which I have never seen in my life." He understood that his fellow House members had been subjected to a similar barrage of hate. "I wouldn't have wished this on any of them," he said.

He said he felt, in these circumstances, it was strange to ask, "Should we get our rights now, or should we wait a little longer, or should we ask all the people whether we should get our rights."

He spoke of the burden that the AIDS epidemic had placed on gays. "Don't tell me what a committed relationship is and isn't," he said. The emotional power of Lippert's message combined with Little's reasoned approach to the task were hard for the House to resist.

The House turned aside amendments that would have delayed their decision, either by calling for a constitutional convention or an advisory referendum. Opponents said the people wanted a say on the issue.

But House members already know that a majority probably opposes the action they have taken. Two extraordinary public hearings allowed the public an unprecedented opportunity to express its views, and the volume of mail to the Legislature and to the press has provided the Legislature with a full spectrum of opinion. Votes on Town Meeting Day showed continuing opposition to same-sex marriage or civil unions.

What the House required was not more finely calibrated gauges of public opinion, but the power to weigh the opinion it heard against the requirements of the law. In the end, that is what the House did.

It is likely that, if this bill becomes law, Vermonters will recognize they have lost nothing by extending fair treatment to neighbors who have had to conduct their personal lives in a shadow of discrimination. Vermonters, in the end, will appreciate the leadership shown by the House on Wednesday.