Because the ban is still written into Virginia's constitution, and the only thing keeping it from taking effect is a Supreme Court decision.

Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on June 26, 2015, by a vote of 5 to 4. It was a court decision, not a law passed by Congress — and court decisions can be revisited. In his 2022 concurrence in Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

If Obergefell were ever narrowed or overturned, Virginia's 2006 ban would still be sitting in the constitution, ready to take effect again. Removing it now means Virginia's answer does not depend on five votes in Washington.

Only partly, and the gap is exactly what Question 2 addresses.

Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act in December 2022. It repealed the Defense of Marriage Act, requires the federal government to recognize any marriage that was valid where it was performed, and requires every state to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages lawfully performed in other states.

What it does not do is require any state to issue a marriage license. If Obergefell fell tomorrow, the Respect for Marriage Act would oblige Virginia to recognize a marriage performed in Maryland — but Virginia's own Section 15-A would bar a Virginia clerk from issuing a license to a Virginia couple. Question 2 closes that gap.

No. Read the three sentences of the amendment above. Every one of them begins with "This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions" — that is, state and local government. The amendment says nothing about churches, clergy, ministers, or private citizens, because it does not reach them. It limits what the government may do when issuing and recognizing marriage licenses.

No member of the clergy has ever been required to perform a marriage that conflicts with their faith, and the First Amendment protects that. Clergy decline to marry couples for all kinds of religious reasons today — that does not change.

What the amendment does is ensure that a government clerk cannot deny a lawful marriage license to two adults because of their sex, gender, or race. Whether a particular congregation chooses to celebrate that marriage remains entirely the congregation's decision.

The research does not support that claim, and it has been examined extensively.

The American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the evidence and concluded: "A large body of scientific literature demonstrates that children and adolescents who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." The AAP went on to identify what actually does predict how children do — "their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family."

The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry reached the same conclusion: "There is no credible evidence that shows that a parent's sexual orientation or gender identity will adversely affect the development of the child."

The largest study ever conducted on the question followed more than 1.2 million Dutch children using national administrative records. Children raised by same-sex parents from birth scored slightly higher on standardized tests and were modestly more likely to graduate high school.

And this is the part worth sitting with: marriage is itself one of the things that gives a family stability — legal security for the parents and for the children. Virginia's amendment does not create anything new for these families. It protects what they already have.

No. Every marriage that is legal in Virginia today stays legal. The amendment adds a protection; it takes nothing away from anyone.

Because Virginia's history requires it. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia — a case that began when Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested in their own bedroom in Caroline County. The phrase in the amendment, "marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness," is drawn from the language of that decision.

Including race puts both protections in Virginia's constitution on the same footing, so that neither depends on a federal court ruling holding.

No. The amendment is about who may receive a marriage license and have their marriage recognized by the state. Its scope is a single section of the Bill of Rights dealing with marriage, and its operative words are limited to the issuance and recognition of marriage licenses.

It does not address schools, sports, medical care, identification documents, or any other subject.

The text says "two adult persons." Two — not more. Adults — not minors. Those limits are in the constitutional language itself, and the amendment does not disturb any of Virginia's other marriage requirements.

Marriages performed in Virginia remain legal, because Obergefell still stands. But the 2006 ban stays in the constitution, and Virginia's protection continues to rest entirely on a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that at least one sitting justice has said should be reconsidered.

A failed repeal would also be the second time Virginia voters were asked about this language and declined to remove it.

Amending Virginia's constitution is deliberately difficult. A proposed amendment must pass the General Assembly, pass again in a General Assembly elected after an intervening House of Delegates election, and then be approved by the voters.

This repeal passed the General Assembly in 2025 and again in January 2026, and Governor Spanberger signed the bill placing it on the ballot on February 6, 2026. If a majority votes yes, it becomes part of the Constitution of Virginia on January 1, 2027.