Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  avoidance

And What Does Gov. Schwarzenegger’s CA Supreme Court Pick Think About Prop 8?

I perform hundreds of weddings, and they included one same-sex marriage.

—Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the Sacramento appellate court justice Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to replace outgoing Justice Ron George — who approved gay marriage but then upheld Prop 8 — as the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, in her only comment about her views on same-sex marriage [via]

By:           Sarah Nigel
On:           Jul 26, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 6 Comments
    • ForeverGay
      ForeverGay

      Saying nothing about Prop 8 means she is against same-sex marriage.

      Jul 26, 2010 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican
      Republican

      @ForeverGay:

      Not necessarily. If she were a legislator, I’d agree with you. But judges are an entirely different matter. I’d have been very surprised if she had stated a position on an issue that could conceivably come before the court again in the near future.

      Jul 26, 2010 at 1:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Clint
      Clint

      she performed a gay wedding ceremony. sounds like shes personally fine with gay marriage. the question is does she think voters have a right to pass discriminatory laws.

      Jul 26, 2010 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 3 ยท Clint wrote, “she performed a gay wedding ceremony. sounds like shes personally fine with gay marriage. the question is does she think voters have a right to pass discriminatory laws.”

      More precisely, whatever her personal opinion on same-sex marriages, she isn’t going to let that opinion interfere with her duties as a judge.

      As to the right of the voters to pass discriminatory laws, unfortunately the California Constitution can be changed by a simple majority of the voters. Unless a discriminatory law is illegal under the U.S. Constitution or federal law, she may have no choice. That’s a problem with California’s constitution and the initiative process, but it is not one a judge can fix.

      Jul 26, 2010 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No 4, I submitted it a bit too quickly – it should have said, “Unless a discriminatory amendment is illegal under …” Hopefully the intention was clear from context.

      Jul 26, 2010 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Queer Supremacist
      Queer Supremacist

      @B: It is also proof that direct Democracy doesn’t work.

      Jul 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.