Virginia Pastor Sues Over Same-Sex Marriage Amendment on Procedural Grounds Before November Vote

The church door in Woodbridge, Virginia, opens onto a ballot fight that will be decided before any judge hears the case behind it. A lawsuit filed last week challenges how a proposed constitutional amendment reached the ballot, and by its own timeline it will not be heard before Election Day.

The suit was filed in Prince William County Circuit Court by the Founding Freedoms Law Center on behalf of Ben Purves, pastor of community and member care at Occoquan Bible Church in Woodbridge, according to the Christian Post on 28 October 2026 and the law centre itself.

Its target is Question 2, also called Amendment 2, a proposed Virginia constitutional amendment on the ballot on 3 November 2026. The challenge is procedural, and this article keeps the focus on procedure, as the filings do.

Virginia Amendment 2 Lawsuit: Procedural Challenge to Question 2 Ballot Process

The claim is that the publication and posting steps required by Virginia Code section 30-13 and Article XII, section 1, before the 4 November 2025 election, were allegedly not performed. That is the whole of the legal claim as reported: a question about steps taken before an earlier election, not a ruling on the amendment's subject matter.

If approved by voters, the amendment would remove the existing ban and affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, according to Fox 5 DC and the Christian Post. That description of effect is reported here neutrally, as the amendment's stated effect if passed.

The case will not be heard before Election Day. Early voting runs through 31 October 2026, and the vote itself is on 3 November 2026, so Virginians will cast ballots while the procedural challenge is still waiting for a hearing.

Ben Purves and Kirk McPike: Both Sides of the Virginia Ballot Amendment Fight

Purves said he brought the case because the amendment process must follow the law, and that Virginians deserve a vote conducted lawfully, as reported by Fox 5 DC. His argument, in that account, is about the lawfulness of the process, not only about the outcome he prefers.

Supporters of the amendment take a different view. Del. Kirk McPike, an amendment supporter, says it rights a historic wrong and that the existing ban is unenforceable, according to Fox 5 DC. His position is included here so readers hear the counter-view in the same article as the challenge.

Neither side's view is presented here as the court's view. No court has ruled on the procedural claim in the material reported for this story, and the amendment's fate at the ballot box and in court are two seperate questions.

Churches and voting have met before in recent coverage, including Texas Black Out Sunday: 2,000 Churches Mobilise Black Voters for Midterms and Adam Hamilton Virgin Birth Controversy: Christians Don't Have to Believe, Senate Candidate Says.

The wider debate over faith, law and public life is also covered in UK Conversion Therapy Bill 2026: Christians Warn Parents and Pastors Could Face Prison and in Catholic and Evangelical Leaders Call for Compassionate Immigration Reform.

Virginia Vote 3 November: What Happens After Ballots Are Cast

After 3 November, two clocks will run at once. One is the count, and the other is the court calendar, where a procedural claim filed days before the vote will wait its turn.

Will voters settle the amendment's future before a judge ever reaches the question of how it got to the ballot, and will the procedural challenge, heard after the fact, change anything at all, or will it stand as a record of how closely Virginians watched the process itself?

But the most surprising part of this story is yet to come — keep reading.