Republicans in the Tennessee House of Representatives have approved legislation that would allow individuals and private organisations to decline to recognise same-sex marriages. The bill also protects people from professional penalties if they refuse to officiate or “celebrate” a same-sex wedding.
Critics argue that the proposal could have far-reaching consequences. If enacted, they warn, hospitals, banks and other private businesses might feel empowered to deny services to same-sex couples, refusing to treat them as married clients or patients.
H.B. 1473 specifies that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution obliges only state and local governments — not private entities — to provide equal protection under the law. The language of the bill is narrowly framed, stating that people and organisations are not required to recognise “a purported marriage between individuals of the same sex”, without extending the same wording to other forms of marriage.
Tennessee does not include LGBTQ+ people in its statewide anti-discrimination statutes. A 2011 law also prevents local governments from introducing protections against discrimination for LGBTQ+ residents.
The bill passed the House in a 68–24 vote split along party lines, with no Republicans opposing it.
“The overwhelming majority of Tennesseans already affirmed what we have known for all of history: marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Republican state Representative Gino Bulso, who introduced the legislation. “This legislation protects religious liberty in the Volunteer State by clarifying that private citizens can never be forced to recognise any other definition. I’m grateful to my Republican colleagues for standing with me to defend the common-sense values that have shaped our state and nation.”
LGBTQ+ advocates swiftly condemned the measure.
“Attacking the recognition of people’s marriages is one of the worst ways for the Tennessee House to spend its time,” the Tennessee Equality Project said in a statement. “This bill sows fear about the very protections that give families security, and it fails to address real problems in our state like emergency preparedness and the affordability crisis. Hate won today, but those of us fighting for love and our families will prevail here or in the courts.”
Tom Lee, a board member of the Tennessee Pride Chamber, raised concerns about how the bill might be applied in practice.
“Imagine if under this bill, a private employer said, ‘Well, you can’t take family leave because I, as a private citizen, don’t recognise — using the language of the bill — your purported marriage,’” Lee said. “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.’”
Opponents argue the proposal rests on an expansive interpretation of constitutional law — namely, that the 14th Amendment does not apply to private citizens, and therefore the state cannot or should not prevent private discrimination. Taken to its logical conclusion, they say, this reasoning could open the door to discrimination beyond same-sex marriage.
“Theoretically, you could read that legislation to allow individuals or private organisations to discriminate against someone on the colour of their skin,” said Democratic state Representative John Ray Clemmons.
Republican state Representative William Lamberth rejected that characterisation. “Absolutely not. Look at the bill, listen to debate, it does not open the door to that,” he told WSMV 4.
The legislation forms part of a broader 2026 package of bills described by critics as a “slate of hate”, encompassing several other measures affecting LGBTQ+ Tennesseans. Bulso has also introduced what he calls the “Banning Bostock Act”, aimed at countering the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which prohibited employment discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers. His proposal would permit small businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ employees.
Additional bills this session seek to expand earlier measures. One proposal would broaden an existing law that allows teachers to disregard a student’s preferred pronouns, extending it to all students and school employees and permitting them to ignore a transgender person’s honorifics such as “Mr.” or “Mrs.”.
Another measure would have widened the range of businesses subject to penalties under the state’s drag performance ban, though it was returned to committee earlier this month. A federal court initially ruled the ban unconstitutional, but an appeals court later overturned that decision on procedural grounds related to legal standing.
“I could say it’s a total assault on our rights,” said Chris Sanders, director of the Trans Equality Project, during a news conference. “Some would demure, saying, ‘Oh, it can’t be that bad, really, can it?’”
“But what would you call it when the healthcare of transgender people, the freedom to marry, employment non-discrimination, the dignity of trans and nonbinary people at school, pride celebrations and symbols, drag performance, and much more are up for votes in committees this very week? Give me the right word and I’ll use it.”
