What your vote does
If Yes wins: The one-man-one-woman definition comes out. Government must license and recognize marriages between two adults of any sex. Both possible side effects listed could follow.
If No wins: The one-man-one-woman definition stays in the Constitution, but can’t be enforced while stands. Both possible side effects listed are avoided.
What to watch for
What the ballot doesn’t tell you
- It also removes the ban on .
Two dangerous side effects if Yes winsCourts or lawmakers would decide.
- “Gender” isn’t defined, so this could be used in custody, inheritance and other family court cases.
- Religious adoption agencies and charities that get state money could face legal fights over it.
- How each of these could happen, step by step →
Our principle, for any measure from any side: It isn’t wise to pass a law written in a way that allows dangerous side effects. A better-written law can do the same job without them. Why
The danger of a bad amendmentTrue of every amendment.
- It overrides every other Virginia law, including laws already on the books.
- It’s hard to undo. Lawmakers must pass a change twice, with an election in between, and then voters must approve it. That takes at least two years.
- Courts follow the full text, not the ballot summary. Side effects the ballot leaves out still become law.
Also good to know
- Same-sex couples can already marry under the Supreme Court’s ruling. This matters if that ruling is overturned.
- It binds government only. Churches don’t have to perform or recognize any marriage.
What do supporters and opponents say?
- Supporters say
- Families need to know Virginia will recognize their marriages, and both spouses as their children’s parents.Fact check: Needs context
- Opponents say
- Supporters say it only deletes the old ban and writes into the Constitution. The wording goes further than did.Fact check: Accurate
For each side, a claim we rated Deceptive or Overstated, if any. Otherwise its first argument. See all 6, each fact-checked ↓
Vote No on Amendment 2
I believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman, as God designed it and as Virginia’s Constitution says today. The state’s interest in marriage is preserving the nation’s posterity: binding a man and a woman to each other and to the children they bring into the world. That is really its only interest, and therefore the state has no interest in same-sex marriage.
Amendment 2 would remove that definition and require government to license and treat equally any marriage of two adults “regardless of sex, gender,” a word it never defines. It has no religious exemption. It could be used to challenge the Virginia law that lets Christian adoption and foster agencies decline placements that conflict with their faith and keep serving children with state support. I believe that, all else being equal, every child deserves a loving mother and a loving father.
Same-sex couples can already marry under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling. This amendment changes what Virginia’s Constitution itself says marriage is. Vote No.
This is the editor’s position, signed. The findings on this page are checked the same way for both sides, including claims from people the editor agrees with. When and why the editor takes a position
Check our work
Every finding above in full, with sources. Tap a row to open it.
Our wording check: Read the fine printThe question matches what the amendment does, with one omission: it also removes the ban on civil unions and domestic partnerships.
1It also removes the ban on civil unions
Why it matters: The current ban on civil unions and domestic partnerships also goes away. The amendment doesn’t create them, but the General Assembly or localities could.
The ballot says“remove the ban on same-sex marriage”
The legal text saysAlso deletes: “Nor shall this Commonwealth … create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”
We hold every question up against the full legal text with the same test: what the text does that the question leaves out or puts differently, and what follows from it.
Two dangerous side effects of a Yes voteThe ballot doesn’t mention these. Courts or lawmakers would decide.
- 1
Because “gender” isn’t defined, courts would decide what it covers. The rule that marriages be treated equally “regardless of … gender” could be cited in custody, inheritance and other family-law cases, and argued by extension in employment or school disputes. How this could happen →
- 2
Religious groups that work with government, such as adoption agencies or charities receiving state money, could face disputes citing the equal-treatment rule. Most of those disputes today run through Virginia’s 2020 anti-discrimination law, not this amendment. How this could happen →
What a Yes or No vote doesEverything each vote changes, from the legal text.
What a Yes vote means
A Yes vote also has two possible dangerous side effects the ballot doesn’t mention. See them above ↑- Removes the 2006 amendment saying “only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage,” along with its ban on civil unions and domestic partnerships. It doesn’t create civil unions.
- Declares marriage “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”
- Government can’t deny a marriage license to two adults because of their sex, gender or race, and must recognize and treat lawful marriages equally. “Gender” isn’t defined.
- Applies only to government. It doesn’t require churches or clergy to perform or recognize any marriage, and it has no religious-exemption clause of its own.
- Other marriage limits, such as age, close relatives and number of spouses, stay in place.
What a No vote means
Both possible side effects listed are avoided. See them above ↑- The one-man-one-woman definition stays in the Constitution, but can’t be enforced while the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision stands. Same-sex couples can still marry.
- If Obergefell were overturned, the definition would take effect again.
- The ban on civil unions and domestic partnerships stays.
From the legal text and official records: Question 2 legal text and explanation, Va. Dept. of Elections.
What each side says3 arguments for and 3 against, in their own words, each fact-checked.
In their own words, with a link to where they said it. Then we check each claim against the legal text and the official record, the same way for both sides. We don’t add reasons of our own here.
What the fact-check labels mean
- Accurate
- Matches the legal text or the official record.
- Supported by the text
- A prediction the text’s own words point to. A court would have the final say.
- Needs context
- True as far as it goes, but leaves out something that changes the picture.
- Overstated
- Has a basis in the text, but claims more than the text does.
- Deceptive
- Contradicted by the legal text or the official record, or built to steer voters away from what the question actually changes, even if some words are true.
- Opinion
- A value judgment or prediction. It can’t be proved true or false.
We rate the claim, not the person. A claim can be accurate and still be one side of the story, and an opinion isn’t wrong for being an opinion. If you think we got one wrong, tell us.
What supporters say
Vote Yes- 1.
Families need to know Virginia will recognize their marriages, and both spouses as their children’s parents.
“we didn’t know whether Virginia would recognize us both as their legal parents.”
Rev. Dr. Joe Cobb, mayor of Roanoke · Cardinal News, Sept. 30, 2026 (two views) ↗
Fact check: Needs context He describes the uncertainty before 2015. Since Obergefell v. Hodges, Virginia must recognize same-sex marriages. The text would keep that in place if that decision were ever overturned. Question 2 legal text, Va. Dept. of Elections ↗ - 2.
Couples fear the old ban could come back into force if the U.S. Supreme Court changes course.
“they’re afraid they might not have the right to if they wait.”
Rev. Dr. Joe Cobb, mayor of Roanoke · Cardinal News, Sept. 30, 2026 (two views) ↗
Fact check: Accurate The state’s official explanation says the current ban would take effect again if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Obergefell. Question 2 legal text, Va. Dept. of Elections ↗ - 3.
The Constitution should reflect the families who live here.
“Voting “yes” on Question 2 will ensure our constitution reflects the lives of families like mine who call Virginia our home.”
Rev. Dr. Joe Cobb, mayor of Roanoke · Cardinal News, Sept. 30, 2026 (two views) ↗
Fact check: Opinion A statement of values.
What opponents say
Vote No- 1.
Supporters say it only deletes the old ban and writes Obergefell into the Constitution. The wording goes further than Obergefell did.
“They tell you Question 2 only deletes an unenforceable ban on gay marriage.”
Phill Kline, former Kansas attorney general, Liberty University law professor · Cardinal News, Sept. 30, 2026 (two views) ↗
Fact check: Accurate The Obergefell decision and the federal Respect for Marriage Act use “sex.” This text says “sex, gender, or race,” which is wider than either. Question 2 legal text, Va. Dept. of Elections ↗ - 2.
The sponsors added “gender,” a word with no fixed definition, next to “sex.” Courts, federal law and Virginia’s own Bill of Rights all use “sex” alone.
“The sponsors could have used the term every court has used in the past — they did not. They added a second, different word.”
Phill Kline, former Kansas attorney general, Liberty University law professor · Cardinal News, Sept. 30, 2026 (two views) ↗
Fact check: Accurate Correct. Obergefell framed the question as marriage between “two people of the same sex,” the Respect for Marriage Act uses “sex,” and Article I, Section 11 of Virginia’s Constitution bars discrimination on the basis of “sex.” This text adds “gender” and doesn’t define it, so courts would decide what it covers beyond “sex.” Question 2 legal text, Va. Dept. of Elections ↗ - 3.
Requiring the state to treat marriages equally “regardless of … gender” will be cited in employment disputes, school records, custody orders, probate and any law that says husband, wife, mother or father.
Phill Kline, former Kansas attorney general, Liberty University law professor · Cardinal News, Sept. 30, 2026 (two views) ↗
Fact check: Supported by the text The text requires the state to “treat such marriages equally under the law, regardless of the sex, gender, or race” of the spouses. That directly reaches custody, probate and laws written in terms of husband and wife. Employment and school-record disputes would be arguments by extension, citing “gender” as a protected class in the Bill of Rights. Lawyers can make that argument; a court would decide whether it wins. Question 2 legal text, Va. Dept. of Elections ↗
Checked October 30, 2026 at 8:00 PM EDT.
The danger of a bad amendmentAn amendment sits above every other law in Virginia, and it’s hard to take back.
- It overrides other laws. Any state or local law that conflicts with it can be struck down in court, including laws already on the books.
- It’s slow to undo. An ordinary law can be changed in one session. Changing the Constitution back takes the full process again: the General Assembly passes it twice, with a House of Delegates election in between, and then voters approve it. That takes at least about two years.
- Courts read the text, not the question. The question on your ballot is a summary written by the General Assembly, the same body that proposed the amendment, and revised many times before it reaches you. Once it passes, judges apply the full text word for word, not the summary, and they define any words it leaves undefined. Side effects the summary never mentions are still the law.
- Measures on ballot wording that didn’t pass. In 2026, the General Assembly also considered these, and neither reached a floor vote:HB 1419 (2026)Statewide referendum ballot questions; fairness and transparency requirement, readability standards.Chief patron: Wren M. Williams
+ 27 co-patrons
Terry L. Austin, Jason S. Ballard, Mike A. Cherry, Mitchell Cornett, Will Davis, Hyland F. "Buddy" Fowler, Jr., Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Karen Hamilton, M. Keith Hodges, Hillary Pugh Kent, Terry G. Kilgore, James A. "Jay" Leftwich, Ellen H. McLaughlin, Delores Oates, Justin Pence, Eric Phillips, Chris S. Runion, Phillip A. Scott, Anne Ferrell Tata, H. Otto Wachsmann, Jr., Wendell S. Walker, Michael J. Webert, Madison Whittle, Tony O. Wilt, Thomas C. Wright, Jr., Scott A. Wyatt, Eric R. ZehrSubcommittee recommends laying on the table · Feb 9, 2026 · 6–2names
Yes (6): Bonita G. Anthony, Gretchen M. Bulova, Jackie H. Glass, Karen R. "Kacey" Carnegie, Kelly K. Convirs-Fowler, Rozia A. Henson, Jr.
No (2): Mike A. Cherry, Robert S. Bloxom, Jr.
HR 5 (2026)Right to reproductive freedom; legal effects & consequences of a constitutional amendment.Chief patron: Eric R. ZehrSubcommittee recommends passing by indefinitely · Feb 2, 2026 · 4–1names
Yes (4): C.E. Cliff Hayes, Jr., Dan I. Helmer, Kathy K.L. Tran, Richard C. "Rip" Sullivan, Jr.
No (1): Terry G. Kilgore
Source: Constitution of Virginia, Article XII, Section 1 (how amendments are made)
Read the full legal text, and see who’s behind itThe complete text, who put it on the ballot, and who’s paying.
Underlined text is added. Struck text is removed. Copied from the official text.
ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS. Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage deny the issuance of a marriage license to two adult persons seeking a lawful marriage on the basis of the sex, gender, or race of such persons. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall recognize any lawful marriage between two adult persons and treat such marriages equally under the law, regardless of the sex, gender, or race of such persons.