Same-Sex Marriages Could Be Ignored Under Tennessee Bill
The measure would shield private individuals and businesses from penalties if they refuse to recognize same-sex marriages or provide spousal benefits.
Republican lawmakers in the Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow individuals, businesses, and private organizations to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages.
House Bill 1473, filed by State Rep. Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood), would not outlaw same-sex marriage. Instead, it would shield private individuals and entities from punishment if they refuse to recognize such marriages as valid or decline to provide the same spousal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.
The bill also protects people from being compelled to officiate or “celebrate” a same-sex wedding.
It asserts that private individuals and groups are not bound by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law.
Opponents warn that the bill could allow private hospitals, banks, and businesses to refuse to treat or serve LGBTQ people and same-sex couples. They also argue that the measure’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment could be used to justify discrimination against other groups based on race, ethnicity, religion, immigration status, or other characteristics.
“Theoretically, you could read that legislation to allow individuals or private organizations to discriminate against someone on the color of their skin,” State Rep. John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville) said during debate.
But Bulso said during debate that federal and state laws would prohibit the types of discrimination opponents fear. He argued that his bill simply allows people with objections to same-sex marriage to avoid violating their religious beliefs by recognizing or condoning such unions.
Bulso’s bill ultimately passed along party lines, 68-24, with no Republicans voting against it. It now heads to the State Senate for consideration.
“The overwhelming majority of Tennesseans already affirmed what we have known for all of history: marriage is between one man and one woman,” Bulso said in a statement. “This legislation protects religious liberty in the Volunteer State by clarifying that private citizens can never be forced to recognize any other definition.”
Same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state-level bans. The ruling was later reinforced by the Respect for Marriage Act, a 2022 law signed by former President Joe Biden requiring states to recognize valid same-sex marriages even if Obergefell were overturned.
As long as Obergefell remains binding, Tennessee must allow same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. However, individual clerks or employees who object to processing or issuing those licenses may decline to do so — potentially forcing couples to seek out another official willing to issue one.
If enacted, Bulso’s bill would likely create additional — though not insurmountable — obstacles for same-sex couples seeking to go about their daily lives.
“Imagine if under this bill, a private employer said, ‘Well, you can’t take family leave because I, as a private citizen, don’t recognize — using the language of the bill — your purported marriage,” Tom Lee, a member of the board of directors of the Tennessee Pride Chamber, said, outlining the potential difficulties same-sex couples could face. “Or a bank says, ‘You’ll pay the higher rate (for unmarried couples). We’re not bound by the 14th Amendment. You’re not married in our eyes.'”
Tennessee lawmakers are also considering several other bills targeting the LGBTQ community. One measure, introduced by Bulso and dubbed the “Banning Bostock Act,” seeks to undermine the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that LGBTQ employees are protected from workplace discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The proposal would allow small businesses to refuse to hire or to fire LGBTQ workers.
Other measures under consideration would expand the number and types of businesses subject to penalties under the state’s drag performance ban and broaden an existing law allowing teachers to disregard a transgender person’s honorifics by extending that permission to students and other school employees.
More from Metro Weekly:
Support Metro Weekly’s Journalism
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.