“HJ9, not just about Same-Sex Marriage Rights”
One of the characteristics of the left is to attempt to paint the legislation that they are trying to force on the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the best light as possible. I suppose that any piece of legislation, if they want it to pass, must be heard as positively as possible, but don’t deceive and don’t hide behind the code of Virginia to hide your agenda.
In comes House Resolution 9, the Democrats attempt to redefine Biblical marriage and undo the Marshall-Newman Amendment of 2006. As many of you probably remember in 2006 Delegate Bob Marshall was the chief patron of HB374, a constitutional amendment that was taken to a referendum to the voters of Virginia to enshrine in the Constitution that the only marriage that the Commonwealth of Virginia will recognize is the union between one man and one woman. In fact, looking back and studying the legislative process when that vote was taken, I found that the referendum received 1,328,537 “Yes” votes and 999,687 “No” votes.
The people of the Commonwealth turned out to vote their values on this referendum. Given that when Jim Webb defeated Senator George Allen, he only received 1,175,606 votes, and when George Allen defeated Senator Chuck Robb, he received 1,166,277 votes.
We are in this quandary because of the Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell V. Hodges in which the Supreme Court voted (down party lines) 5-4 that marriage is a right of every person in the “pursuit of happiness,” and since every person has a right to the pursuit of happiness and since marriage is part of that pursuit of happiness, every person has the right to marry and that the Constitution should not hinder the right of anyone, even couples of same-sex.
To justify their decision, they fell back to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
But did the founding fathers have in mind marriage at all here, especially that of same-sex couples, or was there another intention that they were attempting to promote and protect all together? John Bingham served in the United States House of Representatives from 1865-1873 and was known as “The Father of the 14th Amendment.” The 14th Amendment was drafted during the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War and was ratified on July 9, 1868. Its primary intent was to address the citizenship status and rights of formerly enslaved people.
The amendment aimed to ensure that all individuals born or naturalized in the United States were granted full citizenship and protection under the law. The Equal Protection Clause (EPC) or Due Process Clause (DPC) was aimed at ensuring that all people were treated fairly under the law. Was that all that it intended, or did it intend something further as the Justices on the United States Supreme Court say?
John Bingham delivered a speech on February 28, 1866, where he introduced the Amendment and emphasized the importance of the Amendment for the future prosperity and safety of the country. When we read what he said in the speech, we learn that the Founding Fathers had no other intention than Equal Protection of the law.
"The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the Bill of Rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It hath that extent—no more.'" (emphasis mine).
Where does the Bill of Rights mention marriage? It doesn’t. In law, there is a legal term known as “jurisdiction. Did the Supreme court even have the jurisdiction to make such a mandate in the first place.
The answer is “no.” Let me be very clear when I say this; the Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land, and any ruling that they make must come under the scrutiny of the Constitution of the United States, which is the Supreme law of the land. Because the Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land, but the constitution is, and because any rulings that they make must come under the scrutiny of the Constitution, the Constitution says that the Supreme Court did not have the constitutional jurisdiction to make such a mandate for any state, much less all the states. Therefore, the Virginia Constitution is not unconstitutional, because it was a decision that was determined by the voters and because of the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court had no right to make such a mandate.
You know what is unconstitutional? Every same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth of Virginia, because our constitutional Constitution only recognizes the marriage between a man and a woman, no matter what code says, because constitution trumps code.
So, the five Justices of the United States Supreme Court that used the 14th Amendment to mandate same sex marriage to be legal in all 50 States, committed judicial overreach in a major way. However, let me also remind you of the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The word “marriage” does not even appear in the Constitution. So now that we see that the 5 Justices were not within their Constitutional Power to make such a mandate, we know that this whole Constitutional Amendment for Virginia is based on unconstitutional grounds.
However, even though we are here on unconstitutional ground, we are in fact here, so what is at stake? I will put in the Amendment with the format that you can see how it reads now, and how it will read if we do not win back the House and defeat this resolution and the people of Virginia vote “Yes.”
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.
But HJ9 states: Marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not 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. 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.
The first phrase where it says that “marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Now, I understand that the Bible says that marriage is the “grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7), but there is nothing in the founding documents that make such a designation about marriage, so we are already on shifting sand, constitutionally.
The next phrase for consideration is: This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not 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.
What is the point of placing in this Amendment sex and gender? The Amendment will further allow for the fallacy of gender dysphoria. People are created by God either XX (a woman) or XY (a man), that is irrefutable biology, but this amendment will give way to the fallacy that a man can conclude that they are really a woman and vice versa.
However, beyond the Biblical and moral implications, there is the one part of the resolution that once appeared and now has been taken out:
“The amendment provides that "religious organizations and clergy acting in their religious capacity have the right to refuse to perform any marriage.”
Because it has been taken out, VAIB has been sounding the alarm to churches that we must be vigilant to get the true message out and vote. Further, we have been sounding the alarm to the legislature that this is unbiblical, unconstitutional, and unacceptable and must be changed. However, since it passed both chambers in 2025, it must be approved again by both chambers in 2026 with the same language. Therefore, God’s people must sound the alarm of what this constitutional amendment will accomplish.
Proponents of the bill say that religious protection is already enshrined in code and therefore, we do not need to enshrine it in this amendment. However, it must be remembered that a Constitutional Amendment will override any code, if challenged. Because of the lack of protection that is afforded to Churches in the Resolution, legal challenges could be mounted to churches that have a Biblical and conscionable objection to performing same sex marriage ceremonies.
Justice John Roberts, in his dissenting opinion stated, “… when … a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.”
In fact, in California, we have today a case where an adoption agency removed children from a Christian foster home that they had been in for years because the parents would not affirm LGBTQ+, non-binary gender, and same-sex marriage.
I know that this is a lot to take in, but there is a lot at stake for the family and for the Church, if this resolution were to pass. Beyond this, many conservative legislators fear that:
The Democrats’ marriage repeal amendment puts the word “gender” into Virginia’s Constitution. But making gender an aspect of fundamental rights could adversely impact women’s and girls’ sports and privacy; broaden sexual harassment liability; eradicate parental consent over preventing schools or other third parties from providing sex change drugs/surgery; affect schoolbooks and much more.
Nicholas Frietas, Republican from Culpeper said, “This resolution forces a redefinition of marriage that disregards the beliefs of millions of Virginians and threatens the sanctity of institutions rooted in faith and tradition.”
Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, Republican from Shenandoah, stated, “This is another attempt to rewrite our Constitution with ideological experiments that ignore the values of rural Virginia and the rights of religious communities.”
Delegate Mark Earley, Republican from Chesterfield stated, “HJR 9 abandons the timeless definition of marriage and risks eroding the freedoms of churches to operate according to their convictions.”
This is a call to action. God’s people must stand, God’s people must sound, and God’s people must secure the freedoms of religious institutions in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
One of the characteristics of the left is to attempt to paint the legislation that they are trying to force on the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the best light as possible. I suppose that any piece of legislation, if they want it to pass, must be heard as positively as possible, but don’t deceive and don’t hide behind the code of Virginia to hide your agenda.
In comes House Resolution 9, the Democrats attempt to redefine Biblical marriage and undo the Marshall-Newman Amendment of 2006. As many of you probably remember in 2006 Delegate Bob Marshall was the chief patron of HB374, a constitutional amendment that was taken to a referendum to the voters of Virginia to enshrine in the Constitution that the only marriage that the Commonwealth of Virginia will recognize is the union between one man and one woman. In fact, looking back and studying the legislative process when that vote was taken, I found that the referendum received 1,328,537 “Yes” votes and 999,687 “No” votes.
The people of the Commonwealth turned out to vote their values on this referendum. Given that when Jim Webb defeated Senator George Allen, he only received 1,175,606 votes, and when George Allen defeated Senator Chuck Robb, he received 1,166,277 votes.
We are in this quandary because of the Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell V. Hodges in which the Supreme Court voted (down party lines) 5-4 that marriage is a right of every person in the “pursuit of happiness,” and since every person has a right to the pursuit of happiness and since marriage is part of that pursuit of happiness, every person has the right to marry and that the Constitution should not hinder the right of anyone, even couples of same-sex.
To justify their decision, they fell back to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
But did the founding fathers have in mind marriage at all here, especially that of same-sex couples, or was there another intention that they were attempting to promote and protect all together? John Bingham served in the United States House of Representatives from 1865-1873 and was known as “The Father of the 14th Amendment.” The 14th Amendment was drafted during the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War and was ratified on July 9, 1868. Its primary intent was to address the citizenship status and rights of formerly enslaved people.
The amendment aimed to ensure that all individuals born or naturalized in the United States were granted full citizenship and protection under the law. The Equal Protection Clause (EPC) or Due Process Clause (DPC) was aimed at ensuring that all people were treated fairly under the law. Was that all that it intended, or did it intend something further as the Justices on the United States Supreme Court say?
John Bingham delivered a speech on February 28, 1866, where he introduced the Amendment and emphasized the importance of the Amendment for the future prosperity and safety of the country. When we read what he said in the speech, we learn that the Founding Fathers had no other intention than Equal Protection of the law.
"The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the Bill of Rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It hath that extent—no more.'" (emphasis mine).
Where does the Bill of Rights mention marriage? It doesn’t. In law, there is a legal term known as “jurisdiction. Did the Supreme court even have the jurisdiction to make such a mandate in the first place.
The answer is “no.” Let me be very clear when I say this; the Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land, and any ruling that they make must come under the scrutiny of the Constitution of the United States, which is the Supreme law of the land. Because the Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land, but the constitution is, and because any rulings that they make must come under the scrutiny of the Constitution, the Constitution says that the Supreme Court did not have the constitutional jurisdiction to make such a mandate for any state, much less all the states. Therefore, the Virginia Constitution is not unconstitutional, because it was a decision that was determined by the voters and because of the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court had no right to make such a mandate.
You know what is unconstitutional? Every same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth of Virginia, because our constitutional Constitution only recognizes the marriage between a man and a woman, no matter what code says, because constitution trumps code.
So, the five Justices of the United States Supreme Court that used the 14th Amendment to mandate same sex marriage to be legal in all 50 States, committed judicial overreach in a major way. However, let me also remind you of the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The word “marriage” does not even appear in the Constitution. So now that we see that the 5 Justices were not within their Constitutional Power to make such a mandate, we know that this whole Constitutional Amendment for Virginia is based on unconstitutional grounds.
However, even though we are here on unconstitutional ground, we are in fact here, so what is at stake? I will put in the Amendment with the format that you can see how it reads now, and how it will read if we do not win back the House and defeat this resolution and the people of Virginia vote “Yes.”
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.
But HJ9 states: Marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not 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. 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.
The first phrase where it says that “marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Now, I understand that the Bible says that marriage is the “grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7), but there is nothing in the founding documents that make such a designation about marriage, so we are already on shifting sand, constitutionally.
The next phrase for consideration is: This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not 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.
What is the point of placing in this Amendment sex and gender? The Amendment will further allow for the fallacy of gender dysphoria. People are created by God either XX (a woman) or XY (a man), that is irrefutable biology, but this amendment will give way to the fallacy that a man can conclude that they are really a woman and vice versa.
However, beyond the Biblical and moral implications, there is the one part of the resolution that once appeared and now has been taken out:
“The amendment provides that "religious organizations and clergy acting in their religious capacity have the right to refuse to perform any marriage.”
Because it has been taken out, VAIB has been sounding the alarm to churches that we must be vigilant to get the true message out and vote. Further, we have been sounding the alarm to the legislature that this is unbiblical, unconstitutional, and unacceptable and must be changed. However, since it passed both chambers in 2025, it must be approved again by both chambers in 2026 with the same language. Therefore, God’s people must sound the alarm of what this constitutional amendment will accomplish.
Proponents of the bill say that religious protection is already enshrined in code and therefore, we do not need to enshrine it in this amendment. However, it must be remembered that a Constitutional Amendment will override any code, if challenged. Because of the lack of protection that is afforded to Churches in the Resolution, legal challenges could be mounted to churches that have a Biblical and conscionable objection to performing same sex marriage ceremonies.
Justice John Roberts, in his dissenting opinion stated, “… when … a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.”
In fact, in California, we have today a case where an adoption agency removed children from a Christian foster home that they had been in for years because the parents would not affirm LGBTQ+, non-binary gender, and same-sex marriage.
I know that this is a lot to take in, but there is a lot at stake for the family and for the Church, if this resolution were to pass. Beyond this, many conservative legislators fear that:
The Democrats’ marriage repeal amendment puts the word “gender” into Virginia’s Constitution. But making gender an aspect of fundamental rights could adversely impact women’s and girls’ sports and privacy; broaden sexual harassment liability; eradicate parental consent over preventing schools or other third parties from providing sex change drugs/surgery; affect schoolbooks and much more.
Nicholas Frietas, Republican from Culpeper said, “This resolution forces a redefinition of marriage that disregards the beliefs of millions of Virginians and threatens the sanctity of institutions rooted in faith and tradition.”
Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, Republican from Shenandoah, stated, “This is another attempt to rewrite our Constitution with ideological experiments that ignore the values of rural Virginia and the rights of religious communities.”
Delegate Mark Earley, Republican from Chesterfield stated, “HJR 9 abandons the timeless definition of marriage and risks eroding the freedoms of churches to operate according to their convictions.”
This is a call to action. God’s people must stand, God’s people must sound, and God’s people must secure the freedoms of religious institutions in the Commonwealth of Virginia.