24/7 Newsfeed

Put Reason 24/7 on Your Site

RSS

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter and via RSS

Many State Officials Refuse To Defend Laws They Consider Unconstitutional

Once state legislation is passed, it’s usually up to the governor and attorney general to see that the law is implemented.

But in a number of high-profile cases around the country, top state officials are balking at defending laws on gay marriage, immigration and other socially divisive issues — saying the statutes are unconstitutional and should not be enforced.

In Pennsylvania, for example, Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) says she won’t defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in federal court. In Hawaii, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) filed court papers calling that state’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

Source: Washington Post. Read full article. (link)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Proof positive that Obama is RACIST -- he chose California's black AG as the most beautiful AG, passing up this fine hunk of white woman.

    RACIST RACIST RACIST!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So majority rules unless I don't like the majority? Typical hypocrisy from Team Blue. They damn well better be OK when a Republican Gov. fails to enforce statutes that they like. Where's Tony to start whining about anarchy when you need him?

  • Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.||

    Kathleen Kane will continue to enforce Pennsylvania's ban on marriage for Gay couples for as long as the law is on the books. But in terms of its constitutionality, why should she be forced to defend in court something that she knows is indefensible, especially given the Supreme Court's decisions on DOMA and Prop. 8?

    Those of us who support marriage equality for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples didn't really have a choice but to "target" all the piecemeal, state-by-state bans, didn't we? The Supreme Court could have issued a comprehensive ruling requiring Gay and Straight couples to be treated equally, at ALL levels of government, but instead they chose to punt on the some of the details.

    So what now? Most of the legal benefits of marriage come from the federal government. Take survivor benefits under Social Security, for example. Legally married Gay couples in Iowa are now entitled to those benefits, but suppose one of those couples relocates to West Virginia, which has a statutory ban on same-sex marriage. Does the state have the power to forcibly annul that marriage? And if so, does the couple now LOSE those federal benefits?

    Don't fault US for continuing this fight. The Supreme Court left us no choice.

advertisement