Virginia’s ‘Same-Gender’ Marriage Amendment

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.



And speaking about the upcoming/ongoing election:

Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Be Overturned

Despite the scare-mongering by the left (Big LGBTQ+ now joined by Hillary Clinton) and the fever dreams of the anti-gay right, it’s not going to happen. There are huge legal and moral differences between marriage equality and abortion, as well as the justices’ differing past positions on these two issues (i.e., Roe critics who supported marriage equality in Obergefell).









RFMA: A Bipartisan Step Forward

More from Andy Craig, on why the prosecution of small business owners being forced to provide expressive services for same-sex marriages is a consequence of anti-discrimination laws, not marriage equality.

Anti-Narrative

More. Progressive Yale professor Greta LaFleur disdains Buttigieg’s marriage as insufficiently rad.

Changing Times

Related, this study concludes that “Consequently, same-sex marriage and similar reforms come at no “welfare” cost to society at large—if anything, the opposite appears to hold. We further build on previous research showing positive effects of economic freedom on happiness and on tolerance towards gay people and interact our rights measure with economic freedom.”

Yes, there are pockets of “resistance,” but that’s always true with social advancements. The Texas decision won’t survive appeal to the federal courts.

Sometimes, of course, we’re our own worst enemy:


For the Surrogacy Revolution, Thank Free Markets and Voluntary Exchange

Reprinted from the Chicago Tribune in the Duluth News Tribune (talk about the heartland): Gay men increasingly turn to surrogates to have babies.

Yes, they are, and it represents a sea change in the lives of gay men who are, increasingly, married with children.

The surrogacy revolution is premised on free enterprise and the voluntary exchange of a market economy, made possible when government and its army of bureaucrat regulators get out of the way.

Government’s role here is limited to enforcing contracts, when necessary, as adjudicated by the courts.