One of the most commonly heard complaints about House actions on civil unions is that House members have not listened to the people.

The House, responding to a Supreme Court ruling, has passed a bill allowing for civil unions for same-sex couples. The Senate will take up a similar bill soon. The charge that House members did not listen to the people arises in part from town meeting votes in which people in some towns expressed their disapproval of same-sex marriage or civil unions

The assumption is that, unless legislators heed the perceived will of the majority, they have not listened. To the contrary, however, House members and senators have done an extraordinary amount of listening. The outpouring of sentiment on all sides has been voluminous, and an awareness that civil unions are unpopular has certainly not been lost on members of the Legislature.

In considering the actions of their legislators, however, private citizens might ask themselves how they make up their own minds on important public questions. How many of us would be proud of admitting that, in determining what is right or wrong, we allow our minds to be made up by our neighbors? Doesn't the individual citizen form his convictions on the basis of his own values and his assessment of the public good? How could any of us say we have convictions at all if we were to let the majority of our neighbors determine what our convictions are?

A legislator has a greater responsibility than an individual citizen in making decisions on public issues. The legislator has to take into consideration the views of the public and to balance public opinion with his or her own reading of the public good. But to ask our legislators to surrender their judgment in order to reflect the shifting shape of public opinion is to ask them to leave at home the very qualities for which we elect them to office: their intelligence, judgment, sensitivity, and courage.

Members of the Legislature have listened to the public, and what they have heard is complex. As they listened, they heard, among other things, that it is fair and decent to treat all Vermonters with compassion and not to exclude same-sex couples from the benefits that attach to marriage. The House wouldn't have passed the bill it passed if members hadn't been listening to Vermonters who said these things. Nor would they have passed the bill they passed if they had checked their judgment at the door and allowed themselves to be swayed by the majoritarian winds.

There is a segment of the population that will never accept civil unions for same-sex couples. One of the fundamental divides on the issue has to do with people's understanding of homosexuality. Some people believe homosexuality is a choice and that those who choose it are immoral. The actions of the Supreme Court and the House are premised on another view: that sexual orientation is a condition, like left- or right-handedness and that sexual orientation is no justification for condemning a segment of society to pariah's status.

Some people will never be reconciled to that view. But the moral condemnation of homosexuality has not prevailed. Rather, a Legislature that has listened to the many voices of Vermont is moving toward a conclusion that humanity is diverse and that fair treatment for all should be the goal.

Supporters of civil unions have shown exemplary courage in heeding the call of conscience, but it is not fair to say that they have a corner on conscience. Conscience is active on both sides of the question.

As the Senate nears a vote on civil unions, senators have the job of hearing what Vermonters say and then putting the question to test of their convictions. That is all anyone could ask.