Image Credit: capitol.tn.gov
The Tennessee Conservative [By Paula Gomes] –
A bill that would amend Tennessee Law so that individuals and organizations cannot be compelled to recognize same sex marriages passed in a 5 to 1 vote in the House Children and Family Affairs Subcommittee on Tuesday.
Sponsored by Representative Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood-District 61), House Bill 1473 (HB1473) would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 36-3-113, by adding a new subsection.
According to the bill’s text, the proposed legislation would read, “Private citizens and organizations are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment or by the Supreme Court’s purported interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and no private citizen or organization in this state is required to recognize a marriage or a purported marriage between individuals of the same sex, notwithstanding any other law.”
In addition, the legislation would prohibit the Tennessee Judiciary board from disciplining, sanctioning, or threatening to discipline or sanction any person for “declining to celebrate or officiate at a marriage or commitment ceremony” that falls outside the state’s definition of marriage which explicitly classifies the institution as between one man and one woman.
The bill will go next to the House Judiciary Committee.
About the Author: Paula Gomes is a Tennessee resident and reporter for The Tennessee Conservative. You can reach Paula at paula@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
4 Responses
The wording of this bill has apparently been incorrectly stated in the MSM. I agree with the idea that a preacher should NOT be forced to perform marriages that are against their religion. But, governments should recognize any marriage that is legal. This is the U.S., not Iran or Afghanistan.
GOOD!! Hope committee RINOs don’t kill it.
I suspect the Supreme Court isn’t going to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges. You would have to prove that same-sex couples marrying harms anyone, and there is no evidence of that. Fact is, marriage equality for same-sex couples shouldn’t have taken as long as it did. There was never any constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same right to marry that Straight couples have always taken for granted. What more legal reasoning do you need?
Churches have never been forced to provide weddings for anyone, and it’s a moot point anyway, since the legal benefits of marriage don’t come from the church, they come from the federal government. Procreation and parenting are irrelevant also, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for a marriage license.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) there are 1,138 legal protections, regulations, and responsibilities that pertain specifically to married couples. Much of this has to do with Social Security, inheritance, healthcare, etc. If the government wanted to get out of the marriage business altogether, it would be a legal quagmire.
Some would also suggest that marriage should be left up to individual states, but the point would be moot since a marriage honored in one state is honored across state lines. Marriage is fundamentally a contractual agreement between two adults. Any couple can fly off to Las Vegas for the weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored back home, thanks to the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.
Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I don’t think SCOTUS will reconsider the issue. Frankly, they wouldn’t DARE.
Gino Bulso’s HB 1473 is a solution in search of a problem. As long as they’re not denying people their legal rights and benefits under the law, no one is being FORCED to recognize, let alone approve of, ANYONE’s marriage, whether it’s a Gay or Straight couple. Churches have never been FORCED to provide wedding services to anyone. This is just more shameless pandering for votes by Gino Bulso.