A proposed Tennessee bill would strengthen “conscience rights,” allowing people qualified to officiate marriage ceremonies to refuse to perform same-sex unions, or any others to which they object.

Lawmakers in the Tennessee House of Representatives already have passed House Bill 878. To become law, the legislation now must be approved by members of the state senate, and get past the Tennessee governor’s desk.

Under state law, a long list of officials have the power to officiate—or “solemnize”—a marriage in Tennessee. The new law would allow them to decline.

Across the nation, wedding vendors have faced expensive, years-long legal battles for refusing to perform services for same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Some have told The Epoch Times that they fear the new Respect for Marriage Act could put them even more at risk for lawsuits, if they refuse to provide services for weddings that go against their religious beliefs.

The act was signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2022.

The Respect for Marriage Act recognizes any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law and was written to give federal protection to same-sex and interracial unions.

It requires states to recognize marriages legally performed in other states. And it allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action, for violations.

According to the congressional summary of the act, it does not “affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law.”

The summary also states that the act does not “require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage.”

But the proposed Tennessee bill now threatens same-sex marriages there, LGBT activists argue. And many media outlets have interpreted the new measure as an attempt to ban gay marriage by proxy.

Under current Tennessee law, any couple planning to marry must first obtain a marriage license from a county clerk.

Then, the couple must make marriage vows to solemnize the marriage before a religious leader, judge, elected state official, county clerk, or others allowed under state statute.

After that vow-taking ceremony, the officiant signs the marriage license and returns it to the county clerk.

The proposed law is just two sentences long.

If passed, it would stipulate that in Tennessee, “a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage if the person has an objection to solemnizing the marriage based on the person’s conscience or religious beliefs.”

It doesn’t address whether county clerks can refuse to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And if a person authorized to perform a marriage refuses a couple, nothing in the law prevents the couple from finding a willing officiant.

The Epoch Times attempted to contact the bill’s Republican sponsors, state Rep. Monty Fritts and state Sen. Mike Pody. Neither responded by publication time.

In a debate on the House floor, Fritts said he knew of no instance when an unwilling officiant had been forced under the current law to solemnize a marriage in Tennessee.

But, he said, the lack of apparent need for the law was irrelevant. The bill would protect “civil liberties and rights,” he said.

The law didn’t specifically target same-sex marriages, he said.

Current state law generally says state officials and clergy “may” authorize a marriage, but it doesn’t say they must, according to legal analysis by the Family Research Council (FRC).

If someone with authority to solemnize marriage doesn’t want to perform a ceremony for any reason, he or she can refuse, the FRC’s analysis reads.

“Pastors decide what marriages they will and won’t perform—they are not required to perform marriages they do not wish to perform, such as same-sex marriages,” according to the FRC legal analysis.

Officiants may have other reasons for declining to participate in some marriage ceremonies, Fritts pointed out.

And the right to refuse a request to perform a ceremony rarely affects whether a couple can marry, the analysis suggests.

“No individual has been denied a marriage ceremony because they couldn’t find anyone to perform it,” the FRC analysis asserts. “Therefore, it is difficult to see what interest the state would have in forcing anyone to perform any solemnization.”

But the law doesn’t explicitly say a lawful officiant may refuse to conduct a couple’s wedding.

So people who refuse to perform a marriage ceremony could face a challenge, according to the FRC.

The proposed legislation would turn what’s now an implied choice into a legal guarantee.

In a written statement, the Human Rights Campaign called the proposed law a continuation of Tennessee’s “obsession with anti-LGBT legislation.”

“These bills are not about protecting children, and they are not about religious freedom,” the group’s legal director, Sarah Warbelow, wrote in a press release about HB 878, and another proposed law that would require drag performers to obtain a permit before shows.

“They are about stripping away the basic human rights that LGBT people have fought for over decades, forcing LGBT people, particularly transgender and non-binary people, back in the closet and labeling us as dangerous.”

Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, agreed, writing in a press release that “the Tennessee House of Representatives continues to be one of the most dangerous legislative chambers in the country for LGBT people.

“They have ignored constituents in their offices, phone calls, and compelling committee testimony. It is time they became the People’s House again.”

The Epoch Times contacted the Human Rights Campaign and the Tennessee Equality Project, but the organizations didn’t respond by publication time.

Tennessee recently banned drag shows for children and child sex-change surgery.

Fourteen states have banned drag performances for children and several more states have banned sex-change surgeries for minors.