Of the 11 jurisdictions that have legislatively recognized same-sex marriage, only New Hampshire does not specifically exempt facilities held by religious organizations. Legislation passed in all states since 2009 have this exemption explicitly spelled out in their laws.

In fact, enabling legislation since 2009 has evolved to include religious exemptions: (a) for fraternal benefit societies (i.e. Shriners Hospital); (b) for church-controlled organizations (such as St. Francis Healthcare System); and (c) for organizations in education, employment and housing (such as Catholic Charities, Inc.).

The states of Maine, Rhode Island and Delaware approved same-sex marriage legislation in 2012 and 2013, by including clear and broad exemptions for religious organizations asserting that no government may compel, prevent or interfere in any way with religious doctrine. Specifically, broad religious exemptions protect religious organizations from refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods and privileges related to the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage.

Legislation in other states reflects that support for specific religious exemptions is growing stronger. These exemptions are being spelled out in "red" and "blue" states in New England, the Mid-Atlantic and on the West Coast, not the conservative "Bible Belt." Washington State’s same-sex marriage law, adopted in 2012, is viewed as one of the most progressive by all stakeholders.

So, with due respect to the Star-Advertiser’s Aug. 27 editorial ("Don’t overreach on church exemptions"), stating that "for Hawaii to approve such (religious) exemptions (to public accommodations) would be a step backward" is not supported under an analysis of recent enacted same-sex legislation.

A majority of states recognize that same-sex marriage should not be a tool to dismantle people’s religious beliefs. In this respect, I find it curious that both the editorial board as well as some community leaders would choose to restrict First Amendment freedoms when the trend is in fact the adoption of further safeguards of our fundamental religious liberties as Americans.

In our rush to judgment, the last thing we need is another "Superferry." The recent U.S. Supreme Court Windsor decision does not require or necessitate immediate action, but instead suggests a measured and thoughtful contemplation before we proceed.

Prudence dictates that we learn from the experience of other states, and Hawaii’s Legislature should be expected to present a thoroughly vetted measure.

An issue of this magnitude demands and deserves much more than a one-week public debate.

The real discussion that is taking place is one of tolerance in reconciling two important and fundamental values. Tolerance, however, is a two-way street.

In much the same way that people of faith are asked to be tolerant of same-sex couples, it is only fair that we be tolerant of religious beliefs. Hawaii’s progress toward a more tolerant and egalitarian society demands that our notions of equal protection and religious freedoms unite us, not divide us. Indeed, we cannot have one without the other.