The battle over same-gender marriage has brought to light at least one area of agreement between two unlikely parties — namely the New York Times and The New York Sun. The hang-up in Albany concerns how much protection, if any, the law would give to religious institutions, clergy, charities, and individuals who fear being dragged into court for sticking to the laws of God. The Times wants what it calls a clean bill, one that doesn’t provide any protections. The Sun prefers that, if there is going to be same-gender marriage, the law maximizes the protections for religious New Yorkers. What we agree on is that the furtive way these negotiations are being conducted in Albany is scandalous.

The Times complains that the politicians say “hidden talks are necessary” and it frets that “it’s a cowardly way to conduct the public’s business.” No doubt about it. But where has the Times been? The religious communities in New York — particularly the Catholic leadership and the most religious of the Jewish organizations — have been asking for full, public hearings on same-gender marriage for years. The leadership in Albany has resisted these hearings. In 2009, the Assembly passed its first same-gender marriage bill, one that would change the marriage contract in historic ways, without any hearings.

We wrote about this as far back as 2007, when the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, was pressed on the point by our then reporter, Jacob Gershman (he’s now with the Wall Street Journal). At the time, we issued an editorial called “Let Religious New Yorkers Be Heard.” The editorial quoted the justice of the New York Court of Appeals, Robert Smith, who had written the historic opinion saying the state’s constitution left it up to the legislature to decide, one way or another, whether there would be same-gender marriage in New York. Wrote Justice Smith: “We therefore express our hope that the participants in the controversy over same-sex marriage will address their arguments to the Legislature; that the Legislature will listen and decide as wisely as it can.”

The legislature, however, did not listen. Years later and advocates of same-gender marriage are still trying to force the issue through without hearings. Governor Cuomo gave the public the first glimpse of his bill last week, and he behaved as if he expected it to pass within a matter of days, even though it radically changed a sacred contract that had existed for hundreds of years. We understand that advocates of same-gender marriage have many compelling stories and that individuals have been waiting for years, even decades for change.

Yet on what basis was the legislature supposed to turn around and rubber stamp the governor’s bill? It’s just shocking that all this is being done in secret, without hearings. Law professors who specialize in civil rights and marriage have been reduced to writing to individual senators to warn them of the legal jeopardy Mr. Cuomo’s bill would represent for religious New Yorkers who want to obey religious law in their own lives and their own businesses, churches, mosques, synagogues, and charitable institutions. What is the logic of leaving this all to back-room deal-making?

The grudging nature with which protection for religious New Yorkers is being advanced in the legislature will, we predict, stand as a warning of further trouble to come. Who can doubt that no matter what bill clears the legislature — and it could happen in the middle of the night — the measure will be just the opening bell in a vast legal struggle, in which our religious communities will be on the defensive? This all could have been — and possibly still can be — avoided with a clear set of public hearings, where everyone has a chance to make his or her case out in the open and at length. No matter which side one is on in respect of the marriage question, that is the best way to do it, even if it has to wait until the Fall.