One of Vermont's weekly newspapers recently carried a letter to the editor, like others that have been seen in recent weeks, condemning homosexuality as a disordered state and criticizing the movement to give it the imprimatur of public approval through the creation of civil unions for same-sex couples.

The same edition of the paper happened to carry the obituary of a man who for many years had been a pillar of his town. He was a Navy veteran, an educator, a business owner, chairman of his school board, president of the Chamber of Commerce, clerk of the fire district, president of the museum, and a philanthropist who gave land for a town park. At the end of the obituary it said he was survived by his partner of 56 years.

The two don't compute. On the one hand, there is a beloved local figure who for decades worked to make his community a better place. On the other, there is an eagerness to condemn him for the relationship that was central to his life.

The emotional tenor of the debate about civil unions has gained intensity because people's moral beliefs about sexuality are often deeply felt. Also deeply felt is the sense many have that it is wrong to denigrate people who have lived exemplary lives by submitting them to the cross-examination of someone else's moral code.

The state Senate is scheduled to take up the civil unions bill today. The Senate Judiciary Committee has given the matter careful consideration under the conscientious chairmanship of Sen. Dick Sears.

Votes are easier to count in the Senate than in the House, and approval in the Senate is expected. Of course, the Senate may opt to adopt the bill passed by the House instead of the bill developed by the Judiciary Committee. That course would avoid the need to call a conference committee to resolve the differences between House and Senate bills and avoid revotes in both houses.

Either bill would serve. Neither bill harms traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Both bills recognize that gay and lesbian relationships exist and that gays and lesbians who are committed to one another ought to be accorded certain rights and responsibilities.

A constitutional amendment has been forwarded to the Senate floor which would strip the Supreme Court of the power to require equal treatment for same-sex couples. The amendment is not necessary.

Rep. Tom Little, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stated that the civil union bill was a good bill, not because it satisfied the demands of the Supreme Court, but because it was the right thing to do.

The Senate is poised to do the right thing today. Its action, and the action of the House, were impelled by the Supreme Court decision, but the court's decision was impelled by the demands of justice.

Many Vermonters will be disappointed by the Senate's approval of the bill, believing that legitimizing civil unions will further habits of immorality. But the civil unions bill is based on the premise that it is not ours as a state to judge the morality or immorality of private relationships. We are all free to form our judgments about sexuality, love, and family and to live our lives as we see fit.

It is our responsibility, however, to conduct public policy in a way that does not consign a portion of the public to a policy ghetto, forbidden to enjoy the rights that are accorded to others.

Senate approval of the bill for civil unions will open that ghetto and establish a policy of fairness for same-sex couples in Vermont. In time that attitude of fairness will seem as natural as the shining of the sun.