What Gov. Linda Lingle heard during private meetings she had with advocates and opponents of civil unions last week probably didn't deviate much from what's been said repeatedly in public.

Since those meetings, the governor has given little indication as to what she will do about legislation that will enable people to form legally recognized relationships regardless of gender.

Other than saying she won't say until she returns from a two-week-long trip to China — arriving home three days before a deadline to notify lawmakers of measures she intends to veto — Lingle has been circumspect about which way she's leaning.

Earlier, the governor repeated that she opposes same-sex marriage and the civil unions bill “;does appear to me, on reading it, that it really is same-sex marriage, but by a different name.”; But that was during the state Republican Party convention when delegates approved a resolution urging her to veto — not exactly the most charitable atmosphere for her to be entertaining contrary thoughts.

Lingle said the meetings emphasized the “;deeply, deeply held feelings”; surrounding civil unions and that there are divides even within usually like-minded groups and collectives.

She could not have been surprised.

Hawaii broke ground on the same-sex marriage issue when in 1993 the Supreme Court declared that denying certain people the right to marry violated the state's Consti- tution. Through lawsuits, trials and eventually a constitutional amendment, island leaders and voters and interlopers have fought heatedly and repeatedly over matter.

Now, 17 years later, they have come up with civil unions as a course for equal rights and protections for all of Hawaii's citizens.

It is really just a way station. Civil unions will apply only within the islands' shorelines until an encompassing national policy is achieved. That may take some time, but there is progress, evident in recent moves to eliminate barriers for men and women to serve in the military regardless of sexuality, and in President Barack Obama's order for federal agencies to extend further benefits to same-sex partners.

Meanwhile, the number of Americans who object to gay marriages and civil unions are dwindling.

At present, feelings do run deep and, as Lingle noted, however she decides, “;one side or the other is not going to be very happy.”;

There are suggestions that the governor has already made up her mind and that the meetings were merely for show, a way in which she can claim she listened before deciding.

I do not believe that's the case, or at least I hope it isn't.

The choice for Lingle becomes difficult only if she factors in hardened party politics, complicated if she looks through a cynical lens of economic effects that are unpredictable. It will be complex only if she gives in to fears that civil unions will break religious principles, which are irrelevant in this issue. She should base her decision simply on what will do the least harm to the people and the community and open the door to changes that will benefit the many.