At the end of the year, a new amendment might appear in the 230-year-old Virginia State Constitution's Bill of Rights, redefining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. According to the Washington Post, an amendment intending to ban same-sex marriage in Virginia has been passed in the House of Delegates and approved in the Senate by a vote of 28 to 11. Whether the proposal has the potential to become a constitutional law will depend on the percentage of statewide support the amendment garners during an upcoming referendum in November. Although Virginia law currently does not recognize civil unions as legal marriages, proponents of the proposal claim that a constitutional amendment would ensure that all levels of government adhere to the amendments provisions, the Post reported.
Virginia's push for constitutional change is being supported by proponents of state rights, who believe that states should have the right to propose and adopt important issues in their Constitution separate from the rulings of the national government. According to first-year College student Blair Barrett, the fact that Virginia is acting independently in considering this amendment is a positive step toward future autonomous state action.
"I don't think that [the proposal] should be a national amendment," Barrett said. "But if there is enough agreement throughout the state and the consensus is strong, then the states should have the power to pass it. Once you start letting the federal government encroach upon state power, there will be a domino effect into other state liberties."
Opponents of the proposal, such as the gay rights organization Equality Virginia, see the negative effects these state policies will have on the national push for equality among gay and lesbian couples, and are prepared to fight the amendment's confirmation. One of the major claims these opponents make is that the proposal's inclusion in the constitution's Bill of Rights would ironically deny some citizens their basic rights as human beings, the Post reported.
"It's dumb to be spending time to promote this issue because [the proposal] is removing people's rights as opposed to giving them rights," fourth-year Engineering student Alex Kelly said.
According to the Post, newly-elected governor Tim Kaine will have the opportunity to exert his authority by vetoing the bill, which sets the November referendum; however, a statement from his press secretary denied Kaine's willingness to do so because of his traditional definition of marriage.
Most advocates of the bill stress a need to maintain the traditional family unit and use religious arguments to support their positions. Fourth-year College student Armin Zijerdi, however, said religious rhetoric should be absent from consideration of this bill.
"The issue is inherently religious in nature," Zijerdi said. "There should be a greater secularization of the issues. There is no reason for Christian ideology to manipulate or influence the affairs of the government."
The passage of this amendment could have large implications for the ways in which other states choose to consider the issue of same-sex marriages. According to the Post, 18 states have added amendments to their constitutions barring same-sex marriages since 2003.
Barrett, however, said she does not believe that all states will follow Virginia's suit on this issue.
"I don't think it's realistic to think every state would consider" the proposal, Barrett said. "It's not likely that a state like California will pass it."