Senate passes 'natural, ordinary meaning' bill slammed by LGBT groups as discriminatory

Tennessee state Sen. John Stevens said the intent of a bill to assign "natural and ordinary meaning" to terms in state law was, in part, aimed at compelling courts to side more closely with the dissenting opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark same-sex marriage ruling.

During a Senate debate Thursday, several state senators pointed to examples in state law where the definitions of terms like "agriculture," "awful," "book," and "statue" and others have been updated to reflect more current culture. If changes in society mean those terms must be redefined, some senators argued that's the purview of a government's legislative body.

But when the hour-long debate turned to terms like "mother," "father," "husband" and "wife," Stevens said the legislature hopes to compel courts to side with late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his dissent of the 2015 case that gave equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Stevens said courts should "do what Justice Scalia emphasized people should do and that is look at the meaning of the word at the time the legislation was passed."

"Pull out a dictionary and see what the word meant, because you would have to assume the legislature didn't define the word," said Stevens, R-Huntingdon.

The debate took place before the Senate voted 23-6 to approve the controversial measure that LGBT rights advocates view as a pathway to discrimination and an attempt to undermine the 2015 high-court decision. The House approved the measure last month on a 70-23 vote.

The measure now goes to Gov. Bill Haslam, who could sign the bill, veto it or simply allow it to take effect without his signature. Haslam's office said Thursday afternoon the governor would "defer to the will of the legislature," a clear signal he doesn't intend to veto the legislation.

The bill and another very similar one that would have defined husband, wife, father and mother by their traditional meanings have drawn protests and demonstrations at the Capitol in recent months. Opponents have argued the bills encourages discrimination. The second bill, HB0033/SB0030, has not moved through the legislature this year.

Pro-LGBT groups quick to urge Haslam Haslam to veto the bill, which some called the "LGBT Erasure Bill."

"The Attorney General noted potential conflicts with existing law in his recent opinion," said Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project. "Those conflicts could cause judicial confusion and discrimination against LGBTQ people in Tennessee.  The bill makes Tennessee a target for national economic boycotts."

GLAAD, another pro-LGBT group, also condemned the Senate's actions, and said the entire nation is watching Haslam for his action on the legislation

"With the entire nation watching, Gov. Haslam should veto this bill which is not only bad for business, but would set a dangerous precedent that could place the well-being of LGBTQ Tennesseans in jeopardy," said Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD.

Former state lawmaker David Fowler, who now serves as the executive director of the Family Action Council of Tennessee, wrote the bill the Senate approved on Thursday. Fowler congratulated and spoke with Stevens after the session in the Capitol rotunda.

Fowler wrote in a blog post this week that the bill was necessary because judges are pushing "the gay agenda" in their decisions.

"The bill is needed because judges increasingly like to give otherwise unambiguous words new meanings, essentially rewriting statutes to suit their policy agenda," he wrote.

"Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court redefined marriage," Fowler continued. "It looks like our attorney general now wants courts to rewrite the other words associated with the family to comply with the gay agenda."

State Attorney General Herbert Slatery's opinion was a common topic in the floor debate, which essentially said the law would create conflict with existing statute and the Supreme Court decision, and judges would likely side with the current law and interpret statute to be more inclusive.

Stevens said that state law has referenced terms for hundreds of years, leading many, including fellow Republicans Sen. Steve Dickerson of Nashville and Sen. Doug Overbey of Maryville to question why the bill was necessary.

Dickerson was the only Republican to vote no on the bill, and Overbey declined to vote.

Jake Lowary covers Tennessee politics and state government for the USA Today Network. Reach him at 931-237-1583 or follow him on Twitter @JakeLowary.