It is sign of Harvard's (albeit fading) liberalism that students have criticized Vermont's gay civil union legislation as not going far enough. They claim that gays deserve nothing less than the right to marry. But that belief misses the very significance of Vermont's recent actions. Instead of criticizing the law for being too narrow, we should rejoice that it happened at all. As 22 other states, like California, have moved backward by expressly prohibiting gay marriage, Vermont alone moves forward and only Vermont has done the right thing.

Last December's Baker v. Vermont decision by the Vermont Supreme Court, which granted gays and lesbians the right to have legal unions, moved far quicker than the current of political trends. In the future, historians may even look back on the decision in the same way they view California's 1948 Supreme Court decision that legalized interracial marriage. That was a decision so far ahead of its time that the U.S. Supreme Court did not agree with it not for another 20 years. Similarly, although Baker effectively ends decades of discrimination, its idea of granting gay unions legal recognition has yet to hit the mainstream public. Not for a long time will the majority of Americans come to terms with the ruling, civil unions and their ramifications. In a great understatement, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean explained, "This is a sea change for many, many people."

In this month's Perspective, Mike A. Hill '01, chair of the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters' Alliance (BGLTSA), is quoted as asking "aren't both marriages and 'domestic partnerships' merely public, social affirmations of the loving relationships between two people? Yes. So why bother with the differing terminology?" Hill is correct that civil unions are not marriage--but they are the closest thing anywhere in the country. And eventually, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, civil unions will lead to gay marriage.

The lawmakers who voted for the bill did so not because it was the easy thing to do, but because it was the right thing to do. For many, the vote ended months of agonizing, debate, and--for some--vicious personal attacks.

The odds against civil unions, as against any type of recognition for gays, were almost overwhelming. The opponents of gay unions attacked the legislators and supporters alike: A gay rights supporter had his car burned, Randall Terry (formerly of Operation Rescue fame) brought his Christian conservative radio show to Vermont's capital and called on his listeners each day to help fund his anti-gay crusade. In the months following the decision, the governor's office has hired extra staff to answer the 500 daily phone calls weighing in on gay marriage.

In the end, after hours of teary debate on the House floor, the bill passed by a single vote. After hours more debate in the Senate it passed there as well.

The numbers do not tell the whole story. The battle came at a great price to my state. The full price of the civil unions bill will not be known until the November elections when these civil rights leaders stand for reelection. But one only needs to ask the legislators in St. Albans, who were booed off the stage of a panel two weeks ago for voting for the bill, and they'll tell you they do not expect to be in the House a year from now. For dozens of legislators, their entire careers may been reduced to this single vote in the eyes of some constituents.

Sen. Mark MacDonald, who represents a conservative district overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of civil unions, had decided to oppose civil unions until one of his constituents asked him, "What are you going to tell the kids when you go back to school?'' That stopped MacDonald, a social studies teacher for 23 years, cold: "What was I going to tell them? I voted the way I did so it would be easy for me to get reelected?"