Senate President Robert Travaglini may be the new kid on the legislative leadership block, but he continues to give an impressive and entirely grownup performance in that role. His stepping up on the thorny issue of civil unions is the latest evidence of that.

The Supreme Judicial Court last month gave the Legislature 180 days to “take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of” the court’s historic decision on gay marriage. The court issued its ruling the day before the Legislature adjourned its formal sessions for the year. Yet to wait until the beginning of the 2004 legislative session would have wasted valuable time, risked bumping up against the court-imposed deadline and set the stage for the kind of crisis-driven action the Legislature has too often engaged in.

Yesterday, however, the Senate took the lead and sent a civil union bill up to the high court for an advisory opinion on whether this particular piece of legislation will meet the court’s standard for granting same-sex couples the “due process and equal protections” guaranteed by the Massachusetts Constitution.

The bill, sponsored by Sens. Frederick Berry (D-Peabody) and Joan Menard (D-Somerset), goes as far as any piece of legislation could in granting to same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of civil marriage without actually using the “m-word”. It would set up a procedure to grant “certificates of civil union,” address custody and divorce issues, allow for the joint filing of income taxes, and provide for health insurance benefits and inheritance rights.

There are those who would argue that it falls short of the court’s mandate because it does not call this new thing “marriage.” There are others who would argue – and we would hope they are correct - there is enough ambiguity in the court’s decision to allow for a wide-ranging civil union law.

The Senate with its timely action has done the best it can do.

Those who are more concerned with genuine rights than with semantics will hope the court agrees.