Committee advances bill clarifying Obergefell's reach to state actors, prompting public opposition

The Judiciary Committee advanced House Bill 14-73, a sponsor‑led measure described as a clarification that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and the 14th Amendment apply to public actors, not private citizens. Representative Chairman Bolsa told the committee the bill clarifies existing law and references Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell to justify language in the measure.

The proposal prompted sustained questioning from multiple members about whether the bill changes law, whether it would authorize private entities to refuse to recognize lawful marriages, and about the bill’s insertion of the word "purported" when describing marriages recognized by Obergefell. Legal counsel said the term "purported" does not appear in the Obergefell opinion; members debated the term’s effect and an oral amendment to strike the word failed on a recorded voice vote.

Three public commentators opposed the bill at length. Pastor Travis Meyer said he was "here this afternoon to speak in opposition to this bill" and asked why the legislature was revisiting the subject; Johanna Cohen argued the measure would set a dangerous precedent that a state could choose which amendments to enforce and said, "This bill states private citizens and organizations are not bound by the 14th amendment... I would say that the precedent that this bill is setting is not right for Tennessee." Tom Lee, speaking for the Tennessee Bridal Chamber, warned the bill could harm businesses and consumers by enabling inconsistent recognition of marriages for commercial purposes.

After debate and the failed oral amendment to strike "purported," the committee voted to send the bill to calendar and rules; the clerk recorded 13 ayes and 5 nos. The record shows substantive disagreement between the sponsor and several members and members of the public about legal consequences and precedent.