Share and Follow
In Nashville, Tennessee, a controversial bill that would permit private groups and individuals to disregard same-sex marriages has successfully passed through the state House following extensive discussions on its constitutional implications.
The bill, put forth by Representative Gino Bulso, a Republican from Brentwood, aims to specify that the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges—which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide under the 14th Amendment—applies solely to government bodies and public institutions. According to Bulso, the rationale behind this is that only these entities are obligated to adhere to the constraints outlined in the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
During a session on the House floor, Bulso emphasized, “This bill does not alter existing law. It merely provides clarity by stating that the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s 2015 interpretation in Obergefell v. Hodges do not impose obligations on private citizens.”
The proposal sparked a lengthy debate among lawmakers, focusing heavily on questions surrounding its constitutionality.
“Members, this is a bill that does not change existing law. It simply clarifies existing law,” Bulso said on the House floor. “It provides that the 14th Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of that amendment in its Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, are not binding on private citizens.”
Lawmakers debated over the constitutionality of the proposal at length.
“We do not have the authority to do what we are trying to do here today,” Rep. John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville), chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said. “To characterize this or mischaracterize this as already the law and we’re simply clarifying it, I think, is a gross exaggeration not only of the power of this body, but also what we’re attempting to do here, which is to deny humans fellow citizens equal rights.”
The bill passed the House largely along party lines. Meanwhile, members of the Tennessee Equality Project watched from outside the chambers.
Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, told affiliate WKRN that while the bill likely won’t change things for large, private entities, including national bank branches or big healthcare systems, it would likely hurt those in rural areas where those organizations are smaller and often locally-owned.
“Imagine if the Treasury Secretary were driving through the state of Tennessee and had an accident in a small, rural county, and someone refused to recognize his husband as his husband, and they had to make medical decisions or wanted to visit in the healthcare facility,” Sanders said. “That’s the kind of impact that this bill could have on anybody in a dire circumstance.”
The bill’s opponents worry it could open doors for further discrimination against other types of marriages, including those between biracial or non-religious couples.
“What [Rep. Bulso] is doing today is far more sinister and extensive than simply clarifying the law,” Sanders said. “Who passes a law to clarify the law? This is about taking back the recognition and the impact of the Obergefell decision today, but in its language, broadly about the 14th Amendment, who knows what all it opens up? Does it get into questions of, ‘Well, maybe I don’t recognize your citizenship. Maybe I don’t recognize your marriage, and you’re not even a same sex couple.’”
When reporters asked House Republican leadership whether the bill opens the door for further discrimination, House Majority Leader William Lamberth (R-Portland) said, “Absolutely not.” House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) refused to answer, concerned about a potential lawsuit over the bill.
“I would just say I would go back and listen to the debate,” Sexton said. “I’m sure there is going to be a lawsuit on this, so anything that’s said is going to be a part of the lawsuit.”
The Senate version of the bill has not yet been debated in committee. It must pass multiple committees before it reaches the Senate floor for a final vote.