Why are Virginia Democrats pushing a state constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right to marry regardless of “gender”? The amendment, now before voters, would make legally permanent both “same-sex” and “same-gender” marriage.
According to the Virginia Department of Elections, if the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell were overturned (which the Supreme Court has signaled is not in the cards), then same-sex marriages would again be illegal in Virginia because “the prohibition on marriages between persons of the same sex or gender remains in the state’s Constitution.”
Say what? Nowhere in the original marriage law currently on the books but unenforceable is there a prohibition against “same-gender marriage.” In fact, before the day before yesterday, no one would have ever conceived of a “same-gender marriage” that was distinct from “same-sex marriage.” What was prohibited were marriages between two men to each other, or two women to each other (but we now know that Democrats have a Big Problem defining what a woman is, including a Democratic Supreme Court Justice).
Prior to Obergefell, if a man (with XY chromosomes, born with male genitalia) self-identified as a woman and wanted to marry a woman (with XX chromosomes, born with female genitalia), there was no issue, whether the woman self-identified as male or female. If a woman who self-identified as a man wanted to marry a man, there would be no problem, whether the man self-identified as female or male. In other words, there was no prohibition whatsoever against “same-gender marriage.”
But once given equal status with “sex” in the state constitution, the door is open for Virginia courts to rule that self-identified “gender” is a protected category, legally equivalent with “sex,” so no barring physical males who identify as female from girls’ locker rooms and sports teams, for starters.
Which could explain what Virginia’s Democrats are really up to with this amendment.
Addenudm:
I am not recommending that Virginians vote against the marriage equality amendment, but I do think its equating of “sex” and “gender” opens the door to unwanted developments, and that’s worth discussing. And I’m angry that Virginia Democrats are forcing voters to signal their support for gender ideology in order to support same-sex marriage.
Log Cabin Republicans, which recently rebranded itself as “LGB” instead of “LGBT” because “the new era of gender identity politics is not the movement we supported and fought for,” has endorsed the marriage amendment. Like most people, I suppose, its leaders either aren’t seeing the gender “Trojan horse” or think it’s not so much of an issue as to take precedence over protecting same-sex marriage from whatever threats might arise in the future.
And then there’s the fact that the local GOP has come out against the amendment with reactionary arguments I haven’t seen in quite some time:
“Why Vote No
· Marriage is the sacred, God-ordained union of one man and one woman.
· This erases the biblical and historical standard from our Constitution.”
That bit of extreme theological misapplication could be enough to propel a vote for the amendment, warts and all.
And speaking about the upcoming/ongoing election: