The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) sparked both Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s proposed Marriage Equity Bill and Senate Bill 1, which the state Senate begins hearing today. After that U.S. v. Windsor decision, President Barack Obama reminded Americans that "[h]ow religious institutions define … marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that."

Will that be true if the Hawaii Legislature enacts the governor’s bill or SB1?

Although the governor’s bill is reported to be under revision, if enacted now, the "protections" for religious dissenters would be the weakest in the nation. SB1 improves on it — but not a lot.

Both promise that no clergy-member must "solemnize any marriage" — and anyone who refuses will not be "subject to fine, penalty, or other civil action." Sounds good. Yet, the U.S. and Hawaii Constitutions already provide this protection.

Both say religious organizations need "not be required to make a religious facility available for solemnization of a particular marriage." Refusing will not result in a "fine, penalty … or civil liability … "

But the proposals diverge hugely in what is needed to qualify for this protection. SB1 sensibly says the facility cannot be used "for profit" (and donations don’t count).

The governor adds a qualifier that makes the exemption worthless: the group must restrict the facility’s use "to its members." Problem is: Many groups see their mission as servicing non-members, and would happily open their facilities to weddings that include non-members.

Both bills falls short in other ways. Both inexplicably eliminate protections included in earlier bill, for "any person authorized to perform solemnizations," such as judges.

Both lack basic, express protections in laws in Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Across the 10 jurisdictions to recognize same-sex marriage by legislation:

>> Eight jurisdictions expressly protect religious nonprofits from being penalized by the government — which may or may not be covered by the bills.

>> Six expressly insulate religious organizations that offer religious counseling or retreats or married-couple housing from a duty to "promote same-sex marriage."

>> Three allow religiously-affiliated fraternal organizations, like the Knights of Columbus, to limit insurance coverage to spouses in heterosexual marriages.

>> Three allow religiously affiliated adoption agencies to place children only with heterosexual married couples so long as they don’t receive any government funding.

Why have these jurisdictions taken such care to expressly protect religious organizations? Because the risks to religious organizations are not speculative. In California, the Salvation Army lost $3.5 million in social service contracts with San Francisco when it refused on religious grounds to provide benefits to employees’ same-sex partners.

Far from hollowing out the victory for same-sex marriage advocates, religious exemptions shift the debate from whether to embrace marriage equality to how to balance it with other interests in society. Legislators in New York, Washington, Maryland and elsewhere say that these protections secured much-needed votes.

Now, both Hawaii’s governor and state Senate are considering improvements to the governor’s first stab — but the Senate bill, while an improvement, leaves more work to be done. Shouldn’t Hawaii go as far as other Blue States and D.C. in protecting religious liberty? Shouldn’t Hawaii channel the Aloha Spirit and provide both same-sex couples and those religiously opposed to same-sex marriage with respect?