The Minnesota Department of Human Rights recently published guidance on the state's same-sex marriage law that goes into effect on August 1. The guidance notes that legislators "sought to ensure that the legislation would not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of religious entities." Did they succeed in that effort? Here's what the MDHR says:

"Religious Exemptions: The new law provides specific exemptions for religious entities from taking part in the solemnization of same-sex marriages. Therefore, a religious entity may choose not to marry a same sex couple as it has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine, policy, teachings and believes [sic] regarding who may marry within that faith."

And

"Other Organizations are Not Exempt: The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from non-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. Therefore, a business that provides wedding services such as cake decorating, wedding planning or catering services may not deny services to a same-sex couple who is planning a wedding based on their sexual orientation."

That's the guidance. That's it. Seems to leave out quite a bit: all those activities of religious organizations and persons beyond the celebration or solemnization of marriages. Vital matters such as: hiring practices and employee benefit policies, the marriage curricula and admissions policies of private religious schools, decisions about who is eligible for married student housing on a religious university's campus, the big question whether an adoption agency can recruit only man-woman married families, whether a marriage counseling service can be closed down if it points out that its understanding of marriage isn't the same as the state's, and so on . . . .

In short, this guidance hardly guides. Or is the MDHR implicitly just stating that the State of Minnesota in fact only protects churches from performing or celebrating same-sex marriage but, for the rest, refuses to protect the religious freedom of faith-based service organizations and religious professionals?

Just a few days after the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a federal judge in Michigan cited language from Justice Kennedy's opinion in deciding not to dismiss a lesbian couple's challenge to the state's ban on adoption by same-sex couples and its ban on same-sex marriage. Notably, the judge referenced Supreme Court language about protecting the rights of children currently being raised by same-sex couples.

In mid-June, an appeals official in the US Department of Agriculture ruled that the USDA had been wrong to deny a building loan to a Care Net pregnancy resource center merely because a room in the facility will sometimes be used for voluntary religious activities.

The facility supports pregnancy classes and emergency shelter for expectant women and new mothers, well within the purposes of the loan program. And the USDA, like all other federal departments, has Equal Treatment regulations that forbid the exclusion of faith-based organizations from its grant and loan programs merely because the organizations have a religious character or offer voluntary religious activities.

Nonetheless, the original decision claimed that the Care Net center would be eligible for the loan only if religious talk were kept outside the building or kept confined to a particular room. The appeals officer who overturned the loan denial said that such a requirement would mean that, even if a religious discussion was sought and initiated by a client, the client and the Care Net staffer would have to immediately clam up and scoot outside the building or to a designated religion room before resuming the discussion. Such a requirement hardly honors the First Amendment's command to government not to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The very extensive damage marriage redefinition causes to the religious freedom of religious organizations and persons was precisely detailed five years ago in Marc Stern's chilling chapter in the book edited by Doug Laycock, Anthony Picarello, and Robin Fretwell Wilson, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emergency Conflicts (2008). The harms have been carefully spelled out in the series of letters and memos a group of constitutional law scholars have transmitted to every state contemplating the change.

On the other hand, legislators hardly hear about any of these real and serious religious freedom problems from the mainstream media. And why not from the networks and major newspapers? Set aside the huge problem of bias (don't we wish!). Apparently the reporters don't report on these problems because they aren't paying attention to them (this may have something to do with that bias). Or at least one reporter--but a very prominent one--hasn't been paying attention.

The reporter is Bob Shieffer of CBS News, host of Face the Nation. On the June 30th show, after the Supreme Court's gay marriage rulings, Shieffer interviewed Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. When Perkins noted some of the religious freedom problems that have arisen, Shieffer expressed surprise, admitting that he had not heard of these problems: "How many--how many lawsuits have been filed on that? Because I must say this is under my radar. I haven't--I haven't heard this."

Not the most encouraging thing to hear from the mouth of a trusted and nationally respected reporter . . .

* "Advancing the goal of tolerance in society may require denying parents the right to determine their children's education, the U.S. Justice Department argued in a legal brief for the case of a German homeschooling family seeking asylum. . . . Since Germany's mandatory public schooling law applies to everyone, not just homeschoolers, the [Justice] department reasons, it does not discriminate against homeschoolers. In other words, it is reasonable, the Justice Department argues, for Germany to work toward the goal of an open, pluralistic society by forcing the children of religious minorities to attend public school."

         --Napp Nazworth, "Banning Homeschools Teachers Tolerance of Diverse Views, Justice Dept. Argues," Christian Post, July 4, 2013.

* "President Barack Obama repeated the oft disproved claim that Catholic education increases division in front of an audience of 2000 young people, including many Catholics, at Belfast's Waterfront hall when he arrived in the country this morning [June 17].

"'If towns remain divided-if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can't see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden-that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,' the US president said."