Community and Cultural Affairs Minister Dale Butler deserves credit for his courage in taking on the sensitive issue of guaranteeing civil rights to homosexuals and lesbians.

The issue is a political hand grenade because of the historic antipathy towards gays, especially from fundamentalist churches, in Bermuda.

Those people who remember the hysteria that surrounded the passage of the Stubbs bill in the mid-1990s that decriminalised homosexuality will know the costs of opposing those who abhor homosexuality.

Indeed, this newspaper, which supported decriminalisation and supports Mr. Butler in barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, lost a number of church advertisements as a result, and may do so again.

For Mr. Butler and the Progressive Labour Party government, which has traditionally drawn heavy support from black fundamentalist churches, the risks are high, especially given the current state of the Government?s popularity.

Outright opposition from the churches, or simply a ?stay at home and don?t vote? approach at a General Election could hurt the party. And Mr. Butler, who holds a marginal constituency, must know this better than most.

So he deserves credit for sticking to his guns in spite of some appalling and shameful vitriol on radio talk shows and elsewhere.

Gay rights advocates presented him with irrefutable evidence of discrimination against gays in the workplace and in the housing, and he recognised an undeniable wrong and has set out to fix it. Most of the arguments being voiced against the amendment are the same ones that were used by racist whites in defence of discrimination against blacks. As hypocritical as that is, it does not lessen the political risks.

So it?s not surprising that Premier Alex Scott has backed away from the issue, declaring recently in the Bermuda Sun that it was not a high priority for the Government.

Indeed, Mr. Scott may be doubly annoyed: this is a problematic issue when he does not need any more and it has taken attention from his signature programme, the Social Agenda, which was supposed to restore the Government?s popularity.

Indeed, it is now clear that no one was really supposed to know about this in the lead-up to the Throne Speech, which was supposed to be all about the feel-good Social Agenda.

It wasn?t in the Throne Speech, but a chance mention in Finance Minister Paula Cox?s PLP banquet speech let the cat out of the bag. Mr. Butler, who thought it would be in the Speech, said a line had been left out.

Later he said he had misspoken. In fact, he said, it had not completed the often complex passage that Cabinet government demands. Mr. Butler is an honest man, and there is no reason to disbelieve him, even though Cabinet secrecy is the best all-weather excuse around for politicians.

Still, why make it a Government vote at all? Homosexuality, like abortion and capital punishment, is ultimately an issue of conscience. Both parties are likely to be divided on the question and there will be virtually no room for compromise. Those who consider homosexuality to be immoral are no more likely to change their minds than those who see civil rights as the overarching guarantor of a civilised and humane society.

The bill could be introduced as a private member?s bill by either a member of the Government backbench or by an Opposition MP and could be put to the vote.

This would save the Government ? and the Opposition ? from forcing the whip on recalcitrant members.

Then MPs can vote their consciences and answer to their constituents.