Life and marriage are not abstract political questions.
Life answers the most fundamental question any society can ask: Who is a human being, and whose life must the law protect?
Marriage answers the next: What is a family, and does government recognize an order that exists before the state – or claim the power to redesign it?
These are not side issues. They are not distractions from taxes, roads, schools, or the economy. They are the moral foundation beneath every other question of government. If the state may decide which human beings count as persons and redefine the family according to political fashion, there is no principled limit to what the state may redefine next.
Virginia voters are being asked to place two sweeping propositions into our Bill of Rights.
Question 1 would create a fundamental constitutional right to reproductive freedom, including abortion. Question 2 would create a fundamental right to marry and require Virginia to recognize marriage between two adults regardless of sex, gender, or race.
The language is modern. The moral conflict is not.
The Republican Party was founded in 1856 as a resistance movement against the political manufacture of non-persons and the legal destruction of family order. Its first national platform declared that all men possess the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that government exists to secure those rights to all persons under its jurisdiction.
The platform then rejected the claim that Congress, a territorial legislature, or any individual could give legal existence to slavery in federal territory.
That sentence established a principle larger than the controversy of its time: government does not create human worth. Political power cannot remove a human being from the protection of law merely because recognizing that person’s rights would inconvenience someone stronger.
The state cannot manufacture a non-person.
That was the central moral question surrounding slavery. It remains the central question surrounding abortion.
The circumstances are different. The victims are different. The institutions are different. But the underlying question remains: May the law place an entire class of living human beings outside the circle of legal protection because those with power find their existence burdensome?
In 1856, the Republican answer was no.
It must remain no.
The same first Republican platform also condemned polygamy and slavery as the “twin relics of barbarism.” Those words were not an accidental combination. The founders of the Republican Party understood that personhood and family order were both foundations of a civilized republic.
Slavery violated the created person. Polygamy violated the created family. One treated a human being as property. The other transformed marriage from a faithful union of man and woman into an arrangement governed by appetite, inequality, and power.
They were not identical evils. They were connected corruptions. Both required government to deny a truth that existed before government. Both allowed the powerful to redefine human relationships for their own benefit. Both degraded the weak while calling the result lawful.
The Republican Party was therefore founded upon two great defenses: the defense of human personhood and the defense of the natural family.
Life and marriage.
Virginia now stands before those same foundations.
Question 1 asks us to place abortion inside the Bill of Rights as a fundamental liberty while leaving the unborn child outside the constitutional frame. The amendment speaks extensively about autonomy, reproductive decisions, medical judgment, and freedom from government interference. It never recognizes the child whose life abortion ends as a human being whom Virginia has an independent duty to protect.
That omission is not incidental. It is the entire structure.
A constitutional right to abortion requires the law to treat the unborn child as something less than a rights-bearing person. The child may possess distinct DNA, a developing body, a heartbeat, movement, and every internal direction necessary for human growth. But under the amendment, none of that creates a constitutional claim to protection comparable to the autonomy claim of the person seeking the abortion.
The stronger person receives a fundamental right. The weaker person disappears from the text.
That is how barbarism enters law – not always through blood-soaked language, but through careful definitions that determine whose blood matters.
Question 2 attacks the other foundation.
Marriage is not merely an emotional contract between adults. It is the institution joining man and woman, connecting children to mothers and fathers, and carrying human civilization from one generation to the next. Government did not invent the male-female reality of marriage. Government recognized it because society depends upon it.
Question 2 would declare sex and gender irrelevant to marriage as a matter of constitutional law. It would place that declaration in Virginia’s Bill of Rights and make it binding upon future lawmakers, officials, and courts.
We are told this is simply equality.
But equality does not require us to declare different things identical. A mother is not a father. A father is not a mother. A union containing both sexes is not the same human reality as a relationship containing only one. Race is irrelevant to the nature of marriage because a man and woman remain male and female regardless of race. Sex is central because marriage unites the two halves of humanity.
We can respect every person without surrendering that truth. We can live peacefully beside neighbors who disagree without rewriting the created order. We can reject cruelty without declaring that government possesses the authority to redefine marriage itself.
Tolerance is not the same as constitutional affirmation.
These two amendments therefore rest upon the same dangerous proposition: reality is whatever political power declares it to be.
Question 1 says government may define a living unborn human being outside constitutional personhood.
Question 2 says government may define marriage without reference to male and female.
One separates human rights from human life. The other separates family from human nature.
Together they would erect two new pillars beneath a house the Republican founders would have recognized – a house built upon the state’s authority to redefine personhood and family order.
That is the house of barbarism.
Barbarism does not mean that every supporter is barbaric. Many supporters are our friends, relatives, coworkers, and neighbors. Some are motivated by compassion. Some fear women will be abandoned during difficult pregnancies. Some want people they love to be treated fairly. Those concerns deserve serious answers, not hatred.
But sincere motives cannot redeem destructive principles.
A society may act compassionately toward an individual while adopting a rule that ultimately degrades human dignity. A law may be marketed as freedom while removing protection from those unable to defend themselves. A constitutional amendment may be described as equality while dissolving the distinctions upon which family life depends.
Civilization begins when strength restrains itself for the sake of the weak.
Barbarism begins when strength defines the weak out of existence.
Civilization recognizes that children are gifts and responsibilities, not disposable obstacles.
Barbarism measures human value by power, independence, usefulness, or desire.
Civilization recognizes marriage as a covenant ordered toward fidelity, family, and the next generation.
Barbarism treats marriage as an adult entitlement whose meaning changes whenever appetite, courts, or political movements demand it.
Republics do not usually collapse in one dramatic moment. They decay when citizens surrender first principles one exception at a time. Law ceases to recognize truths that stand above government. Rights become permissions distributed by power. Family authority weakens. Human dignity becomes conditional. The Constitution stops restraining the state and becomes an instrument for imposing the ideology of the present majority upon future generations.
Once government becomes the author of personhood and family, it no longer recognizes any permanent moral boundary outside itself.
That is not liberty. It is sovereignty without restraint.
Our Constitution should protect truths government did not create. Human life has value before a legislature votes. Marriage has meaning before a court rules. Children belong to the human family before anyone declares them wanted. Mothers and fathers matter before bureaucrats develop new terminology.
These truths are not obsolete. They are the conditions that make ordered liberty possible.
Voting NO on Questions 1 and 2 is therefore not merely a response to the wording of two amendments. It is not simply a partisan gesture or one more engagement in the culture war.
It is a declaration of what kind of people we intend to remain.
Do we believe every human life possesses dignity that government must recognize, or may the powerful decide which lives count?
Do we believe marriage and family rest upon a created order, or may government reconstruct them according to the ideology of the moment?
Do we remain a civilized republic restrained by truth, nature, conscience, and God – or do we submit those things to political power?
Virginia must not build a constitutional monument to the house of barbarism.
We must defend both foundations.
We must defend life.
We must defend marriage.
We must vote NO.
Follow Us