California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George, 70, who authored the 2008 opinion that legalized same-sex marriage for a few months before voters reversed the court’s call, and then ruled to uphold the voter-approved Prop 8 that hijacked his own decision, announced his resignation today — a move “stunning colleagues.” He’s purposefully resigning in time to let his buddy Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pick his replacement.
CJ
In the majority opinion, Justice Ronald George wrote:
“Because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state – that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
(Wikipedia)
Andrew
He’ll have a good place in history.
John (CA)
For better or worse, George was not an activist judge.
He was also author of the decision that upheld Prop. 8 in 2009 because “the people are sovereign.” He was willing to go against the voters once. But when they decided to ban same-sex marriage again, he submitted to their will.
Justice George’s decision to side with majoritarian rule led directly to Perry v Schwarzenegger.
And, with all due respect, I hope Judge Walker reverses him.
Jaroslaw
#3 The will of the people is NOT sovereign. That is why we have Constitutions in the first damn place – to try to uphold loftier ideas and not give in to mob mentality.
Equal protection of the laws should mean something. To go back and bow to the “sovereign” will of the people is a cop out.
What if the majority decide at some point in the future that slavery is ok? It is absolutely possible you know!
Bottom line, this guy is not a hero to me in writing a second opinion that hijacks the first.
Paschal
The constitution should always protect people who have been and/or could be mistreated by the majority. The problem in California is that its constitution permits the taking away of a right by a simple majority. Direct democracy can be a good thing but it can be dangerous.