Instituting heteronormative belief in the law: the case of California's Proposition 22

Abstract

In this paper I discuss the rhetoric about family utilised by the advocates of California's ‘Protection of Marriage Initiative,’ Proposition 22, which appeared on the March 2000 primary election ballot. The viability of definitions of rights and family that presuppose heterosexuality used in this proposition show the connection between religion and politics in the United States. I argue here that the heterosexist belief that creates such laws also establishes heterosexist subjects who act upon such belief. In fact, heterosexist subjectivity is required in order for such legal initiatives to be successful.