California Chief Justice: Doing the Right Thing Means Not Playing It Safe

Judiciary

California Chief Justice: Doing the Right Thing Means Not Playing It Safe

Posted May 19, 2008, 07:09 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Ronald George, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, is known as a moderate Republican who heads a cautious court.

Yet he made history Thursday when he wrote the majority opinion striking down a ban on gay marriages in the state. George told the Los Angeles Times in an interview that he doesn’t know if Californians will accept the ruling, but he felt he couldn’t be swayed by public opinion.

"If you worry, always looking over your shoulders, then maybe it's time to hang up your robe," he told the newspaper.

George noted that the California Supreme Court was ahead of public sentiment in 1948 when it became the first in the country to strike down laws banning interracial marriage.

His opinion in the gay marriage case considered the parallels. It said a ban on interracial marriage would be unconstitutional even if a state statute had allowed such unions under an alternative name, such as "transracial union." Similarly, the state’s domestic partnership scheme denies gay couples equal protection of the laws, even though it gives gay couples essentially the same rights as married couples, he wrote.

The 68-year-old George told the newspaper that he recalled a trip he made through the South as a boy with his immigrant parents. The signs barring blacks from public establishments left "quite an indelible impression on me," he said.

"I think," he told the Times, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Goober - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 13 hours, 42 minutes ago

Any time a judge has to justify an opinion by stating it was “the right thing to do” you know the legal reasoning behind the opinion is faulty. This is the “touchy-feely, warm fuzzies” style of jurisprudence. Clearly, at 68 the California chief justice is showing the onset of senility.
Posted by Kenneth Galica - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 54 minutes ago

It is troubling that the justice cannot see the logical and moral differences between recognizing interracial marriage between a man and a woman and legally validating “marriage” between two men or two women.Nor sadly does he seem to understand the ramifications of his opinion both in this type case and somewhat dissimilar others where the same argument will be made.
Posted by Sarup Singh - 3 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 22 hours, 39 minutes ago

Sounds like a fish market.
How lucky he is.... will emerge after the decision.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Judiciary