Skip to comments.Pennsylvania attorney general refuses to defend state marriage law
Posted on 07/13/2013 10:31:52 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Philadelphia, Pa., Jul 13, 2013 / 08:10 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The attorney general of Pennsylvania has said she will not defend a state law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman in court because she does not agree with it.
Thomas Peters, a spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage, said the action shows that the recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings favoring same-sex unions set a bad precedent that will allow elected officials to not represent the will of the people when they find it expedient.
Peters told the Washington Post that the attorney generals move is a pocket veto of the law.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, said July 11 she believes the 1996 marriage legislation is wholly unconstitutional. She said she was obligated not to defend the case because I endorse equality and anti-discrimination laws.
State law requires the attorney general to uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes to prevent a court from suspending or abrogating them. However, Kane announced that she will not do so for the marriage law.
Government officials refusal to defend laws supporting marriage between a man and a woman has become a prominent tactic to advance gay marriage.
In 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder refused to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for federal purposes as a union of one man and one woman. The House of Representatives then had to fund the defense of the legislation, which passed Congress overwhelmingly in 1996 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The refusal of state officials in California to defend Proposition 8, a victorious 2008 ballot measure that restored the legal definition of marriage to a union between one man and one woman, led to the U.S. Supreme Courts refusal to hear the case. This in effect affirmed the ruling of Californias Supreme Court, which had said the amendment was unconstitutional.
A lawsuit challenging the Pennsylvania marriage act has been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, representing ten same-sex couples, two minor children, and one person whose same-sex partner died.
The suit cites the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in June that struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act by a vote of 5-4.
The court ruled that the U.S. government may not restrict the definition of marriage to one man and one woman for the purpose of federal recognition and benefits. It leaves the definition of marriage up to the states.
Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, is also named in the Pennsylvania lawsuit. He may instruct his general counsel, James D. Schultz, to defend the law.
The suit also names Pennsylvanias health secretary, whose agency produces marriage licenses that recognize only the bride and the groom, and two county registers of wills whose offices did not give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Amy Hill, communications director with the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that it is too early to say whether the conference or other backers of the Defense of Marriage law will file an amicus brief in the case.
The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference has said it will watch the case closely.
Marriage is a personal relationship with great public significance not a private affair that affects all in society. Marriage is not just about adult relationships, it is the foundation of the family. Every child has a mother and a father. And every child has a basic right to a mother and a father united in marriage, the conference said July 12.
While circumstances may prevent a child being raised by his or her own mother and father, marriage is the way society provides for childrens needs in ordinary circumstances, it added.
She is refusing to uphold the law, thereby attempting to overthrow the United States.
That is the law.
Government totally has lost all pretensions of Legitimacy in the United States. Might now makes right here.
Hopefully PA voters will vote the witch out come next election.
This stupid bitch can not write laws, only the congress can write laws. Since Penn, takes federal money she has no choice but to obey the law.
Pennsylvania people better wake the hell up and run this treasonous ass clown out of office.
An the Governor better fire her ass, or he is complicit in treason
She’s so far in over her head and competence level, it really can’t be measured.
The only reason she was elected was because she promised to investigate Corbett and his role in slow-walking the investigation of jerry sandusky when HE was the AG. This got her the PSU alumni vote and that was all she needed.
I think she’s the first ever (D) in the state elected to the position of AG. Likely the last as well.
Evidently Attorneys General are elected to do as they damned well please......kinda like bein’ elected KING.
Sounds like a good job.
So is anyone in Pennsylvania starting a recall? Where is the TEA Party?
I seem to remember that this is not the first time she has done something like this.
Lezzie’s coming out of the woodwork. Don’t these people take some kind of oath to faithfully represent the people and laws of their state?
There is something known as a Writ of Mandamus.
Impeach the beetch.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Laws mean nothing any more. It's whoever shouts the loudest and has the most power. That's it. Our Constitutional Republic is over. The question is - will enough people fight to revive it?
Anyone wanting on/off any of my pinglists, freepmail me.
She’s elected, Governor can’t fire her. She can be voted out or impeached.
Another libtard that has no right to be the PA attorney general. This is the what happens when the libtards run things. The only rule of law is their warped version of reallity.
Query: when 2 lesbians get divorced, how’s the judge gonna know which one to screw over on custody and property disputes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.