Your religious convictions could expose you and others to devastating litigation—and penalties reaching $100,000 if you do not vote no on Virginia’s Amendment 2.
That is not an invented number. Under the Virginia Human Rights Act, the Attorney General may bring certain discrimination cases. A court may impose a civil penalty of up to $50,000 for a first violation and $100,000 for a subsequent violation, along with attorney fees, damages, injunctions, and other court-ordered relief.
Amendment 2 does not create those penalties. It would add a new constitutional command: Virginia and its political subdivisions must recognize lawful marriages between two adults and “treat such marriages equally under the law,” regardless of the sex, gender, or race of the parties.
Vote No on Amendment 2
The amendment’s supporters present this as a simple vote on same-sex marriage.
It is broader than that.
Same-sex marriage is already legal in Virginia under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and under Virginia Code § 20-13.2. Voting No would not invalidate existing same-sex marriages or prevent same-sex couples from marrying under current law.
Voting Yes would place new language in Virginia’s Bill of Rights and give litigants a new state constitutional claim to pursue in court.
What voters will see
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?
That is the official ballot question published by the Virginia Department of Elections.
But here is where it gets tricky.
The phrase “treat such marriages equally under the law” will not interpret itself. Judges will be presented with situations where they will determine what it means, and present and future Attorneys General will decide how aggressively to enforce related discrimination laws.
Could a Christian school be challenged over its employment policies or teaching on marriage? Could a faith-based adoption agency be required to violate its religious standards? Could a photographer, florist, baker, or venue owner face legal action for declining to participate in a same-sex wedding?
Voters therefore must consider where future litigation could lead.
The amendment does not answer those questions. It contains no express conscience protection for schools, ministries, adoption agencies, wedding professionals, or other business owners with religious objections.
Virginia law does protect religious organizations and clergy who refuse to perform a marriage. That protection appears in Virginia Code § 20-13.2. It is important, but narrow.
Refusing to officiate a ceremony is different from operating a school, adoption ministry, photography business, flower shop, bakery, or wedding venue. Voters should not assume that every religious organization and small business would receive the same protection.
“Sex” and “gender” would both enter the Constitution
Amendment 2 uses “sex” and “gender” as separate constitutional categories. The proposed language may be read in full on the Virginia Department of Elections website.
The Family Foundation of Virginia argues that separating “sex” and “gender” in the Constitution could provide grounds for litigation involving women’s sports, locker rooms, shelters, schools, and other policies that distinguish between the sexes.
Supporters dispute those projected consequences. Constitutional language, however, outlives its sponsors.
Once adopted, its boundaries will be decided through lawsuits brought before judges whom today’s voters cannot choose or predict.
Marriage would be constitutionally redefined
The proposed amendment would declare that marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”
The Family Foundation warns that this recasts marriage primarily as a matter of individual fulfillment while removing language defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The organization argues that the change raises questions about marriage’s connection to children, family formation, parental obligations, and stable communities.
Virginians may support the lawful treatment of existing couples while still declining to place this broader and largely undefined language in the state Constitution.
Who will enforce it?
Virginia’s Attorney General already possesses substantial enforcement power under the Virginia Human Rights Act.
The Attorney General may bring civil actions, seek injunctions, request damages, and pursue civil penalties reaching $100,000 for a subsequent violation.
Attorney General Jay Jones’s past violent remarks about political opponent Todd Gilbert and disturbing comments involving Gilbert’s children prompted bipartisan condemnation. Jones acknowledged the remarks and apologized.
Those remarks do not prove how Jones would handle a religious-liberty case.
They give Virginians a legitimate reason to examine his judgment and ask how much constitutional authority they are willing to place in the hands of any Attorney General.
But this question extends well beyond any one officeholder. Constitutional amendments are permanent. Virginia should not adopt sweeping language on the assumption that every future Attorney General, prosecutor, and judge will interpret it narrowly.
What this vote is really about
This is not a vote on whether same-sex couples may marry. They already may.
It is a vote on whether Virginia should place a new equal-treatment mandate in its Bill of Rights without placing an equally clear religious-liberty protection beside it.
Once constitutional language is adopted, Virginians may discover its limits through litigation. By then, a school, ministry, adoption agency, photographer, florist, baker, or venue owner may have to spend years—and enormous sums of money—asking a court where those limits are.
Virginia should protect religious liberty before creating new constitutional grounds for challenging it.
