Skip to content 
On February 19, 2026, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed House Bill 1473, a measure that claims private citizens and organizations in Tennessee are not required to recognize same sex marriages. The bill cleared the chamber 68–24 and now moves to the Tennessee Senate.
At the center of the proposal is a sweeping statement aimed at the private sector, paired with a separate provision focused on professional discipline related to officiating ceremonies.
The language tees up an immediate legal and political clash over how far a state legislature can go in redefining the practical meaning of marriage recognition in everyday life, even while same sex marriage remains protected under federal law.
What the Bill Says, in Plain Terms
The bill’s text adds a new subsection to Tennessee’s marriage code asserting that “private citizens and organizations are not bound” by the Fourteenth Amendment or the Supreme Court’s interpretation in the 2015 marriage equality decision, and that no private citizen or organization in Tennessee is required to recognize a marriage “between individuals of the same sex,” “notwithstanding any other law.”
It also amends Tennessee’s professional responsibility statute with language that bars the state’s Board of Professional Responsibility from disciplining, sanctioning, or threatening discipline against any person who declines to celebrate or officiate a marriage or commitment ceremony that falls outside the code’s definition of marriage.
If enacted, the bill would take effect July 1, 2026, and apply to actions occurring on or after that date.
What Happened in the House Vote
Local coverage describes a tense floor debate and public reaction in Nashville, including an interruption from the gallery during discussion of the bill.
The bill’s sponsor, Gino Bulso, argued the proposal is a clarification grounded in the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment does not bind private parties.
Opponents inside and outside the chamber framed it as an effort to chip away at marriage equality by inviting conflict with the constitutional framework that has governed same sex marriage since 2015.
The Tennessee Equality Project condemned the bill after the vote, warning it threatens family security and is likely to be fought in court.
The Legal Reality the Bill Runs Into
The bill’s premise collides with the federal baseline set by the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license same sex marriages and to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere.
It also sits alongside the federal Respect for Marriage Act (2022), which requires recognition of valid marriages for federal purposes and creates statutory protections tied to interstate recognition of marriages, including same sex marriages, even if a state changes its own marriage laws in the future.
In practical terms, even if Tennessee attempted to reshape “recognition” within the state’s own code, any real-world application will be constrained by federal constitutional doctrine, federal statutes, and litigation risk.
That tension is the core story here: the bill is written as a declaration of state-level permission, while marriage equality remains under federal protection.
What “Recognize” Could Mean, and Where Disputes Would Surface
The bill’s phrasing is broad. It does not read like a narrow carveout aimed only at specific expressive activity. It is written to cover private “citizens and organizations” generally, and it uses “notwithstanding any other law” language that signals an intent to override conflicting state provisions.
That opens up immediate questions about how far “recognition” extends in everyday settings:
- Services and policies that turn on marital status, such as who qualifies as a spouse for internal rules, benefits, or access.
- Sensitive, high stakes environments, such as health care visitation, next of kin decisions, or financial institutions, where “spouse” status often determines what a private actor will accept as documentation.
- Small businesses and rural institutions, where community level decisions can become de facto gatekeeping moments for couples seeking routine treatment as married.
Some of that terrain is already shaped by existing civil rights law and federal enforcement, including protections against discrimination on the basis of sex in certain contexts. The bill appears designed to push into perceived gaps and create friction points that would test where the boundary lies.
The Supreme Court Has Recently Declined a Direct Obergefell Challenge
The measure lands in a national environment where some conservative lawmakers and advocates continue to seek avenues to revisit the marriage equality precedent, while the Supreme Court has shown reluctance to reopen it through certain vehicles.
On November 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal brought by Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples after Obergefell. The court’s refusal left intact lower court rulings holding her liable for violating a couple’s constitutional rights.
That development does not settle the political push at the state level, but it matters as context: the most direct attempt to use the Davis dispute as a pathway to revisiting Obergefell did not get traction at the court.
Who Is Backing the Bill and What Comes Next
HB 1473 is sponsored by a group of Republican lawmakers in Tennessee’s House, led by Bulso.
Procedurally, the bill now heads to the Tennessee Senate, where it will move through committee consideration and potential floor action. Local reporting notes the bill’s path to the Senate and the July 1, 2026 effective date if it becomes law.
The central question is less about whether litigation would happen, and more about how quickly and on what set of facts. Given the bill’s explicit challenge to the binding force of a Supreme Court constitutional ruling, the first serious attempt to apply it in a real dispute would likely trigger immediate court review.
