Virginia parents should vote no on both amendments

Virginia parents should vote no on both amendments. The Daily Signal reported Oct. 14 that Bishop Michael Burbidge had asked Catholics to spend October fasting and praying for their defeat.

His request is specific: pray the Stations of the Cross on Fridays and fast, eating one full meal and no meat. On Sundays, he asks Catholics to pray the Rosary and fast from social media for at least a few hours, ideally before and after Mass¹.

The appeal deserves a response beyond the pews. Before handing either proposal constitutional authority, voters should ask what its words would require the state to defend—and what protections those words would put under pressure. Start with the parent whose daughter is considering an abortion.

“If the Supreme Court were to overturn its previous decision, that prohibition would be enforceable again.”

Question 1 puts parental consent at risk

The amendment would add a fundamental right to decisions about a person’s own reproductive care to Virginia’s Bill of Rights. The proposed text expressly includes abortion².

Its central rule says that right cannot be “directly or indirectly, denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” The amendment then limits a compelling interest to maintaining or improving the patient’s health, consistent with specified clinical standards, without infringing “that individual's autonomous decision making.”²

That gives parents reason to worry: a challenge could argue that parental consent burdens the reproductive-freedom right and must satisfy the amendment’s test.

Virginia law gives a minor who chooses not to seek an authorized person’s consent a route to ask a judge for authorization for an abortion. Those proceedings and their records are confidential³.

Question 2 rewrites marriage in constitutional text

The Department of Elections says Question 2 would remove the same-sex marriage ban, affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race, and require equal treatment of all legally valid marriages. The Department of Elections explains that the amendment also prohibits Virginia from denying two adults a marriage license because of their sex, gender, or race⁴.

Those are affirmative instructions to the state, written into its highest law⁴. A voter who objects to replacing the husband-and-wife understanding of marriage should read all three parts before casting a ballot.

Marriage is a foundational institution of family life, and constitutional language about it deserves more scrutiny than a promise to update old wording. Voting on this proposal means deciding whether its new commands deserve constitutional permanence. The existing court decision is the next question—not an excuse to skip that decision.

The amendment does more than acknowledge Obergefell

Obergefell does not make this amendment mere cleanup The strongest argument for removing the existing prohibition is the legal situation the Department of Elections describes: “This prohibition is no longer enforceable as a result of the United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015”⁴.

The department also states: “If the Supreme Court were to overturn its previous decision, that prohibition would be enforceable again.”⁴ Why approve permanent state commands merely because a federal ruling currently controls?

Voters can recognize the current legal situation and still reject the proposed replacement. A court ruling does not oblige families to endorse this constitutional rewrite.

Virginia parents must reject both amendments

The Department of Elections lists Question 1 for the Nov. 3, 2026, general and special elections². Parents should use that ballot to defend their authority and refuse the marriage rewrite.

Before voting, read the amendments themselves rather than stopping at the language used to promote them. Ask anyone seeking a yes vote to defend the actual constitutional standard for abortion decisions and the actual commands governing marriage. A reassurance about intentions cannot replace an answer about the words voters are being asked to adopt.

Burbidge has urged prayer and fasting; families should carry that seriousness into the voting booth. Vote no on Question 1, vote no on Question 2, and encourage neighbors to read both proposals before they vote.

Sources

1. @DailySignal on X, 2026-10-14: Bishop Michael Burbidge has asked Catholics to spend October fasting and praying for the defeat of the two proposed amendments that would expand abortion access and enshrine transgender ideology into the state constitution. On Fridays, he asked Catholics to p, 2026-10-14
2. Virginia Dept. of Elections: Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Question 1
3. § 16.1-241. Jurisdiction; consent for abortion
4. Virginia Dept. of Elections: Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Question 2