President Bush’s faith-based initiative is a prime example of that type of legislation which is worthy in concept, yet devilish in the details. The worthy concept is that religious charities, already rich in staff, expertise and compassion, should have greater access to federal money to meet social-service needs, such as hunger relief, emergency shelter and substance abuse programs. The most devilish detail is the provision that would exempt these religious charities from state and local anti-discrimination laws.

The Republican-controlled House narrowly rammed through its version of the bill last month, including that troubling provision and over the strenuous objections of Democrats and moderate Republicans. With the Senate now controlled by Democrats, it seemed almost certain the bill would stall.

To the rescue comes Sen. Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, that chamber’s chief proponent and a senator of impeccable conservative credentials. Rather than watch this worthy concept wither, Sen. Santorum proposed Wednesday that the controversial provision be dropped. “Let’s remove the issue and move on,” the senator said in outlining his plan to restore language to the bill that makes it clear federal statute will not pre-empt state and local law.

With this proposal, Sen. Santorum does more than remove a needless and divisive impediment to a greater good; he also reminds his congressional colleagues that the very system of government for which they toil was expressly designed to produce such compromise, that the elaborate mechanism of checks and balances spread over three independent branches of government is more than a question on a civics exam. At a time when the two major parties often seem driven by the desire to affix blame for legislative failure, it’s heartening to see a senator pursuing shared success.

The exemption from anti-discrimination laws was not part of Mr. Bush’s initial proposal; it was added in the House under pressure from some organizations seeking to expand the exemption included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act for churches hiring staff for their religious missions to hiring staff for nonreligious social programs. The issue gained prominence with the discovery of a Salvation Army internal report stating that the charity had received a “firm commitment” from the White House to protect religious charities from state and local laws regarding sexual orientation discrimination and domestic partner benefits, a commitment the administration denied making.

Sen. Santorum’s proposal apparently has the blessing of both the president and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the bill’s chief Democratic backer. If the proposal prevails in the Senate, the two conflicting versions will go to a conference committee for resolution. And if House leaders are truly interested in the efficient and compassionate delivery of important social services, that resolution will succeed. If not, blame for this legislative failure will be easy to affix.