AG Kane will not defend Commonwealth in same-sex marriage lawsuit

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane announced today that she will not defend Governor Corbett and the Secretary of Health in the recent lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s ban on marriages of same-sex couples. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the American Civil Liberties Union, and volunteer counsel from the law firm of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday, July 9, on behalf of 10 couples, the teenaged daughters of one couple, and one widow. The case is Whitewood v. Corbett.



  • Onery

    I am really disappointed in Kathleen Kane. She is supposed to defend the PA Constitution and our laws. PA law is in defense of marriage, not in defense of SAME SEX marriage. I voted for her once, but definitely not make that mistake a second time. She is showing that she is a politician, not a free thinking individual. To call the union of same sex couples same sex marriage is wrong, wrong, wrong. I was also under the impression that our elected officials were elected to respect the views of the folks who put them into office as well as defend our Constitution and our laws. Discovered yesterday that Robert Casey feels that "now is the time to recognize same-sex marriage". I have been wondering, has he done a poll of his constituancy or is that his personal opinion? I voted for him as well. Never again. These flaming liberals give me a migraine.

  • My Opinion

    No opinion on the article, but Kathleen Kane looks "old" in the picture in this article. Is the job getting to her already????

  • MyTakeOnIt

    It's a challenge to the constitutionality of state's ban. Her analysis is that PA's ban is not constitutional and has the recent US Supreme Court ruling to reference. She is acting in accordance of the law based on her findings and the ruling. A few comments above declare politicization of her decision. It more appears that it's your politics and/or your personal beliefs that affect your condemnation of her decision.
    Robert Casey's platform has been the same. You probably voted for him for many different views of that platform that you did agree with or because you did not agree with his challenger on their views.
    It would sure as hell be nice if we, the public, in this advanced digital age, could vote on issues and not for representatives because we may agree with one politician on one issue and not on another. THAT is democracy in the digital age. We vote on each issue, not for people.

  • Douglas Blair

    Pennsylvania has laws on the books, and her job is to defend them. If such a law is found unconstitutional and overturned, OK. Until that may occur (and it might NOT occur) she has a job to do. It really is not Ms. Kane's decision.

Comments are closed.