- The Washington Times - Monday, July 15, 2013

It didn’t take long for the ACLU to push the recent Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage to the extreme. The ACLU is filing challenges to overturn the will of voters and lawmakers protecting marriage in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Similar challenges are underway in Arkansas, where the people approved an amendment to the state constitution by an overwhelming vote.

The response from the top law enforcement officers in these states provides an instructive contrast. Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, promises a full-fledged defense of state law. His Pennsylvania counterpart, Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, gives herself considerable airs as a mere attorney general. She decided that the Pennsylvania law is discriminatory and “wholly unconstitutional.” She said Thursday she won’t defend it in court or anywhere else.

In an interview at The Washington Times after the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage, Mr. Cuccinelli took due note that the Virginia same-sex marriage ban had been overwhelmingly approved, 57 percent to 43 percent, by voters in 2006. “In my capacity as attorney general, I’ve defended it. I would do that as governor.”

Mrs. Kane’s refusal to defend a statute she doesn’t like flouts the rule of law and follows the example of President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. They, too, refused to do the jobs they were sworn to do in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act. Gov. Jerry Brown and state Attorney General Kamala Harris in California showed similar dereliction of duty in the Proposition 8 case.

Fortunately for Pennsylvanians, Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, supports and honors the 17-year-old law as the expression of the people. The state’s general counsel, James Schultz, will assume responsibility for defending it in court. He said he and his colleagues were “surprised that the attorney general, contrary to her constitutional duty under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, has decided not to defend a Pennsylvania statute lawfully enacted by the General Assembly, merely because of her personal beliefs.”

In the Proposition 8 case, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower-court ruling that the measure was unconstitutional, acting largely on procedural grounds that the citizens who promoted the initiative didn’t have standing to appeal the lower court’s decision since state officials refused to do so.

The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania General Assembly could initiate recall proceedings against Mrs. Kane for her refusal to do her job under Article VI, Section 6 and 7 of the state’s constitution. Even if the effort fails, it would send a message to officeholders that they can’t take a day off when called on to perform difficult duties they had rather not.

If the ACLU and the gay blades promoting homosexual marriage are so sure public sentiment is on their side they should try to persuade the legislators to put it to a vote of the people. But they won’t because it’s difficult, unlikely to succeed, and it’s easier to frighten and intimidate compliant politicians.

The Washington Times