Question 2 is presented as a necessary response to current federal law. But Virginia already issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and those marriages are recognized under the United States Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. The immediate question is not whether those licenses exist. The question is whether Virginia should independently place a new definition of marriage into its own Bill of Rights.
We should understand the permanence of that choice.
Court decisions can be narrowed, revised, or overturned. Legislatures can amend statutes. A constitutional provision is different. It places the policy beyond ordinary democratic correction and gives judges the authority to define its reach. If Question 2 passes, Virginia will not merely comply with Obergefell. We will adopt our own constitutional command declaring marriage a fundamental right between two adults regardless of sex, gender, or race.
That distinction matters because no one can guarantee what federal marriage law will look like fifty years from now. Obergefell may remain untouched. It may be reconsidered. Congress may alter federal law. Future courts may adopt doctrines no one currently anticipates. Whatever happens nationally, Virginia’s amendment would remain unless Virginians complete the demanding process of changing the Constitution again.
We should not constitutionalize a disputed social policy simply because one judicial ruling currently controls it. Constitutions should establish durable principles rooted in truth, not preserve the political settlement of a particular decade.
The present amendment also does more than remove unenforceable language. It replaces Virginia’s one-man, one-woman provision with affirmative language requiring the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions to recognize lawful marriages between two adults and treat them equally regardless of sex, gender, or race. That new language becomes a foundation for future litigation. Campaign statements will not control its interpretation. The text will.
We can respect the law as it exists without surrendering our responsibility to judge what belongs in Virginia’s Constitution. Compliance is not endorsement. Tolerance is not constitutional affirmation. Living peacefully beside neighbors who disagree with us does not require us to declare that male and female are irrelevant to marriage.
Our vote must consider generations we will never meet. Once we write a principle into the Bill of Rights, we hand it to future judges, officials, activists, and institutions. They will apply it under circumstances we cannot predict.
Marriage is too foundational to be rewritten as a reaction to one era’s judicial doctrine. We should preserve the people’s ability to debate law, defend conscience, and recover truth when courts or culture move in the wrong direction.
That is a commitment no voter should make casually.
Question 2 would make today’s political settlement tomorrow’s constitutional command. We should vote no.
Follow Us