The Kane recusal: Much ado about?
There's so much fur flying over Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane's decision to not defend the state's law against same-sex marriage that you'd think the furries were back in town.
Mrs. Kane, a Democrat, announced Thursday that she could not in good conscience defend a law, now being challenged in federal court by the ACLU, that she believes, as we do, is unconstitutionally discriminatory. She's being blasted in a number of quarters.
Some argue that Kane is abandoning her sworn duty to defend the constitutionality of commonwealth laws. But state law is clear that the AG can allow lawyers for the governor's office or other executive branch agencies to defend such lawsuits if, among other things, it's in the state's best interests.
If Kane is sincere in the exercise of the courage of her convictions, then recusing herself is in the state's best interests. Would supporters of the law rather have ineffectual counsel?
Of course, others question Kane's sincerity and ascribe political motivations to her decision. After all, she's a Democrat and she's placing the onus of defending a contentious law on a Republican administration as a gubernatorial campaign unfolds. Perhaps she's planning to run against Mr. Corbett next year. Perhaps it's a plot to cast the GOP as homophobes. Really?
No matter what Kathleen Kane's motivations are — and time and actions will reveal if they are anything other than what she's stated — Pennsylvania's version of the Defense of Marriage Act will be defended in court. For better or for ill.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Moody’s downgrade: Inaction’s price
- An ObamaCare ‘re-do’?
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The federal budget: Here we go again