New York’s Marriage Equality Act was adopted by the legislature in June, 2011, only after being amended to include stronger religious freedom protections. But how adequate are those protections? The law clearly says that religious entities need not rent out their facilities or otherwise collaborate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and that they cannot be penalized by the government for this. And then there is broader language: notwithstanding the new definition of marriage, religious organizations have not lost their right to limit employment or housing or admissions to people of their own religion nor their right to take “such action as is calculated by [the] organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained.”

That broader language sounds meaningful: it should protect, say, a Catholic foster-care agency when it decides, on the basis of its faith, that it should only place foster kids with married mother-father families and not with single people or same-sex married couples. And, indeed, a prize-winning paper by Andrew Hamilton, a law student at St. John’s University School of Law, says the broad exemption protects just that kind of faith-shaped service decision. His paper carefully analyzes the law on the background of its legislative history and New York courts’ interpretation of the state’s law against sexual orientation discrimination.

On the other hand, “Know Your Rights,” an FAQ publication from the New York Civil Liberties Union, asserts that adoption and foster care agencies may not discriminate against a same-sex married couple, saying, “New York prohibits adoption and foster care agencies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Nothing in the Marriage Equality Act changes that prohibition.”

Who is right? It’s a crucial question: the NYCLU is sure to be at the forefront in suing faith-based agencies if the religious protections are unclear or weak.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that New York’s attorney general, notwithstanding hisReligious Rights Initiative, has offered any official guidance about the effect of marriage redefinition law on religious organizations and individuals.

Note that the NY law does not protect government officials with an objection to assisting same-sex marriages–even if other officials without the conscience objection are right at hand; and it does not protect persons involved in commerce–e.g., wedding photography, printing, or catering–who object to same-sex weddings, again, even if multiple other businesses are available.

Better religious freedom language has been proposed by a group of constitutional law scholars, as noted in an earlier eNews for Faith-Based Organizations.