Virginia voters were asked in 2006 whether marriage should be defined in our Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. They answered yes. That language is now unenforceable under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, but it remains part of Virginia’s constitutional history and records the judgment voters made.
The amendment before us does not merely delete language that courts no longer enforce. It replaces that language with a new constitutional command recognizing marriage between two adult persons regardless of sex, gender, or race. That is not housekeeping. It is a new decision with new language, new legal force, and consequences that will be interpreted by courts long after the campaign slogans disappear.
We should begin with a basic distinction. A court ruling can prevent Virginia from enforcing its traditional marriage provision. That does not require Virginians to place the opposite moral and legal proposition into our own Constitution. There is a difference between living under federal precedent and affirmatively constitutionalizing that precedent at the state level.
The question is not whether government may issue licenses under current law, but whether Virginia must make that definition part of its constitutional identity.
The word “gender” makes that distinction especially important. Marriage law has historically dealt with male and female, husband and wife, mother and father. “Gender” is now used in ways that extend far beyond biological sex. Placing that term into Virginia’s highest law invites future lawsuits over how broadly it applies and whether other sex-based rules, religious convictions, or institutional policies may be treated as unlawful discrimination.
We are also told that the amendment simply treats sex like race. But race and sex are not interchangeable categories. Race does not determine whether a union contains both sexes. Sex does. The male-female nature of marriage is connected to procreation, kinship, motherhood, and fatherhood. Those realities are not products of prejudice. They are features of human nature.
None of this requires disrespect toward anyone. We can obey the law, treat every person with dignity, and reject cruelty without pretending that every relationship is identical. Civil peace does not demand moral confusion. It demands that we speak truthfully and live peacefully with neighbors who disagree.
A constitution should contain language that is precise, necessary, and durable. When wording is broad enough to produce serious questions about sex, gender, religious liberty, parental rights, and family law, caution is not fear. It is responsible government.
Virginia voters should not be told that their only choices are hostility or constitutional surrender. We can recognize the legal reality created by Obergefell without rewriting our Constitution to declare that sex is irrelevant to marriage. We can respect our neighbors without abandoning the truth that marriage unites man and woman in a unique covenant ordered toward family.
The 2006 vote should not be erased as an embarrassment. It should remind us that constitutional decisions belong to the people and deserve lasting respect. We should vote no, preserve moral clarity, and refuse to turn a disputed judicial settlement into permanent Virginia doctrine.
Follow Us