Skip to content
Fact Check: Are Tennessee Republicans Advancing a Bill That Would Allow Child Marriage?
Go to my account

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.

Alec Dent is a former culture editor and staff writer for The Dispatch.

Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.