We oppose Question 2 because religious liberty means more than permission to preach inside a sanctuary. It includes the freedom to organize our churches, schools, ministries, businesses, charities, and families according to convictions we believe are true. A constitutional amendment redefining marriage while offering no express protection for conscience places that freedom under avoidable pressure.
The amendment would create a fundamental right to marry and require Virginia and its political subdivisions to recognize and treat equally every lawful marriage between two adults, regardless of sex, gender, or race. It does not say churches must perform ceremonies. We should not claim that it does. But it also contains no language protecting religious organizations or individuals when the new constitutional command collides with their beliefs about marriage.
That distinction matters. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not merely the freedom to hold an opinion. Faith is exercised through action: whom a church employs to teach doctrine, what a religious school includes in family housing, which relationships a ministry publicly celebrates, and whether a faith-based organization must use its property or services to affirm conduct contrary to its beliefs.
Even the Supreme Court’s Obergefell majority acknowledged that religious organizations and believers retain the right to teach that marriage is the union of man and woman. Chief Justice John Roberts warned in dissent that recognizing a new marriage right would raise serious religious-liberty questions involving religious colleges, adoption agencies, and other institutions. Those concerns were not irrational then, and adding a marriage right to Virginia’s Constitution will not make them disappear.
We do not ask government to punish our neighbors or deny anyone human dignity. We ask government to leave room for disagreement. Civil law may recognize a relationship without forcing every citizen and institution to celebrate it, facilitate it, or rewrite its moral standards around it. Tolerance cannot work in only one direction.
The strongest safeguard would be clear constitutional language protecting clergy, churches, religious schools, charities, adoption ministries, business owners, and individuals from penalties for acting consistently with sincere beliefs about marriage. Question 2 provides no such safeguard. Instead, it gives one side a constitutional right and leaves the boundaries of conscience to future legislation and litigation.
We know how those contests unfold. A dispute begins with assurances that no one’s faith is threatened. Then an agency, locality, licensing board, employer, or court decides that equal treatment requires compliance. The believer must spend years and resources defending a freedom that should never have been uncertain.
Religious liberty is not an exemption reluctantly granted by the state. It is a God-given right the Constitution exists to secure. We can respect neighbors without surrendering our convictions, and Virginia can preserve civil peace without constitutionalizing a rule that may be used against people of faith.
Until Question 2 protects both marriage and conscience, we should vote no.
Follow Us