The more I consider the implications and possible precedent this could set, however, the more worried I become. On the one hand, Prop 8 was motivated by bigotry, everybody involved damn well knows that, and the federal goverment at least has made it very clear how it feels about bigotry-motivated (or interpreted) laws.
That is not really true, not even a little bit.
I realized upon another re-read that it was not entirely clear what I was calling out there.
What I should have said is: It is not really even a little bit true that the federal government has made it very clear how it feels about bigotry-motivated (or interpreted) laws. If the federal gov't was clear how it felt about bigotry-interpreted or motivated laws, we wouldn't have DOMA or DADT (don't ask don't tell). It hasn't even been very clear on the question of what constitutes bigotry against defined "protected classes," such as people of various religions or ethnicities. Queer people aren't one of those defined protected classes (because queerness asserts itself through behavior and action rather than being something intrinsic like skin color), so the law is even murkier. Again I refer you to Yoshino.
It is very clear that Prop 8 was motivated by bigotry, as are the ongoing campaigns in other states against marriage, domestic partnerships, you name it (I think the high profile of the Prop 8 fight in CA sometimes overshadows the fact that these battles are still going on elsewhere in the USA, and over matters like gaining the right for domestic partnerships, rather than the larger right of marriage).
It is less clear that everyone involved--I am speaking here mostly of individual voters, not clearly bigoted state or out-of-state organizations or political actors--damn well knows that, but that's partly the fault of the piss-poor or nonexistent outreach to people of color and religious communities done by some (though not all) CA gay-rights groups *coughcough HRC cough*.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One clarification...
Date: 2009-10-06 02:47 pm (UTC)That is not really true, not even a little bit.
I realized upon another re-read that it was not entirely clear what I was calling out there.
What I should have said is: It is not really even a little bit true that the federal government has made it very clear how it feels about bigotry-motivated (or interpreted) laws. If the federal gov't was clear how it felt about bigotry-interpreted or motivated laws, we wouldn't have DOMA or DADT (don't ask don't tell). It hasn't even been very clear on the question of what constitutes bigotry against defined "protected classes," such as people of various religions or ethnicities. Queer people aren't one of those defined protected classes (because queerness asserts itself through behavior and action rather than being something intrinsic like skin color), so the law is even murkier. Again I refer you to Yoshino.
It is very clear that Prop 8 was motivated by bigotry, as are the ongoing campaigns in other states against marriage, domestic partnerships, you name it (I think the high profile of the Prop 8 fight in CA sometimes overshadows the fact that these battles are still going on elsewhere in the USA, and over matters like gaining the right for domestic partnerships, rather than the larger right of marriage).
It is less clear that everyone involved--I am speaking here mostly of individual voters, not clearly bigoted state or out-of-state organizations or political actors--damn well knows that, but that's partly the fault of the piss-poor or nonexistent outreach to people of color and religious communities done by some (though not all) CA gay-rights groups *coughcough HRC cough*.