Both Illinois and Hawaii recently redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. Like other states introducing same-sex marriage by legislation or court action, these two states chose to provide only minimal protection for the religious freedom of persons and organizations who have a religious conviction that marriage is reserved for male-female couples.

The protections in the Hawaii bill are so weak that a lesbian legislator voted against the marriage redefinition bill, saying that its religious exemptions were inadequate and predicting there will be court battles as a result

And in Illinois, a news story reported the following reflection about what happened after the legislature passed a civil unions law supposedly protecting religious exercise:

“Patrick Cacchione, executive director of the Illinois Catholic Health Association, points out that when Catholic Charities refused to issue foster care licenses to gay couples in civil unions, the state chose not to renew its contract, saying it violated the law.

“‘I couldn’t have anticipated it,’ Cacchione said, recalling assurances from lawmakers that the civil union law would not interfere with the groups’ social work. ‘I was shocked.’

“After that surprise consequence, Cacchione said, he expects the marriage law to produce ‘fallout that I can’t even anticipate.'”

The basic problem is that legislatures are quick to protect churches and pastors against having to perform same-sex weddings–when no legal authority believes that in the United States they can be compelled to do so anyway. But they are only somewhat willing to protect churches and other religious organizations from having to participate in celebrating same-sex weddings (e.g., by renting out banquet facilities). And they are essentially unwilling to protect religious organizations from having to treat as legitimate marriages unions that they believe are not marriages (e.g., in deciding which employees can claim spousal benefits or deciding where to place children for adoption) and unwilling to protect professionals such as wedding photographers from having to help to celebrate unions to which they have religious objections.

There are serious and sweeping religious freedom problems-but little interest by state legislatures or governors in addressing them.

For proper protections, see the letters to legislators and governors from constitutional law scholars archived at the Mirror of Justice blog.

And note the sad recent appearance of counter-letters by other experts, arguing against broader religious freedom protections.