Fact Check: Are Tennessee Republicans Advancing a Bill That Would Allow Child Marriage?
The original bill to create a new kind of marriage contract did not have a minimum age requirement, but it has been amended.
Viral social media posts claim that Tennessee Republicans are advancing a bill that would eliminate a minimum age for marriage.
The bill in question is Tennessee’s House Bill 233, sponsored by Rep. Tom Leatherwood, a Republican representing Tennessee’s 99th District. The bill has 19 co-sponsors, all Republicans. If passed, the bill would create a separate type of marriage contract intended only for heterosexual unions. Leatherwood said the purpose is to create a license for marriage that ministers with objections to gay marriage can sign without feeling like they’re supporting a marriage system that includes same sex marriages.
Tennessee law currently dictates individuals must be 17 years old or older in order to get married, but in creating a different pathway for marriage, this requirement would not apply to HB 233. The bill initially did not include an age requirement—though the sponsor was asked to add one in early March after it was reviewed by the Children & Family Affairs Subcommittee—leading to widespread concern over the potential for child marriage, but an amendment filed on Wednesday would add an 18 year old age limit to HB 233.
Claims that Tennessee Republicans introduced a bill that would legalize child marriage were accurate, but since April 6 and the changes to the legislation, such claims are no longer correct.
If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.
Another stupid Republican anti-gay bill that is a solution in search of a problem. Ministers are already not required to sign a state of Tennessee marriage licenses. There have been no religious organizations required to perform same sex marriages.
If you note, Leatherwood, who wrote the bill, left age out of it. When asked why he didn't amend it weeks ago, he did not answer directly. But the reason he did not amend was that some religions think it's okay for very young girls, like 12 or 13 to marry, and to marry much older men. Since this was a "religious rights" bill, the Republicans were going to include protecting that bit of religious nonsense as well.
But the worst thing about this bill, is that it is a discriminatory one. Of course it is. That is what the Republicans are all up to now, hating on the gays. Anti-LGBTQ+ state legislators have tried and failed multiple times to pass bills making specious legal arguments that the state doesn’t have to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. Now they are trying to establish a separate marriage registration process for male-female couples who object to the regular process.
The regular process - you know, going to apply for a marriage license. Oh yeah, these whiny snowflakes want special treatment...their own "real marriage process". Don't ever let any Republican tell you it's gay people who want "special treatment". It is very much THE REPUBLICANS that want it. Again, what they accuse others of doing, they are doing themselves.
It is discriminatory and hopefully they will be sued into oblivion. It raised red flags that it did not have an age limit, as it should have. Now let the red flags ALL be about more hate coming from Republicans against LGBTQ people.
And thank you Alec for saying the claims were originally correct. Of course they were.
Really appreciate these succinct and linked fact checks.