Kane Wants Out of Same-Sex Marriage Suit

, The Legal Intelligencer

   |0 Comments

Kathleen Kane

"There is no question that plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of a state statute may bring suit against the official who is charged with enforcing the statute, but only if that official has either enforced the statute or threatened to enforce it against the plaintiffs," Kane said in her brief.

"In this case, the attorney general is neither charged with the enforcement of Section 1704 of the marriage law, nor has she enforced or threatened to enforce it against the plaintiffs," she said.

It's not surprising that Kane would file a motion challenging the claims against her rather than the merits of the suit itself, said Michael Banks of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, who is working with the Philadelphia-based LGBT rights group Equality Forum on the Eastern District case.

In her brief, Kane suggested that the appropriate state officials would be the secretaries of health and revenue since their responsibilities touch on the enforcement of the marriage law.

When the plaintiffs in the Middle District case dropped Corbett and added the secretary of revenue, their lawyer, Mark Aronchick, said that focusing the suit on the two state officials who are most closely related to the enforcement of the marriage law—the ones responsible for income tax filings and death certificates—unclutters the case and "goes right to the heart of the issue." Aronchick, of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, is working with the American Civil Liberties Union on the case.

That suit includes plaintiffs who are seeking to get a marriage license in the state of Pennsylvania as well as those who want their marriages performed in other states to be recognized in Pennsylvania, while the Eastern District case is brought by one couple who was married in Massachusetts and wants that union recognized here. So, Banks explained, the plaintiffs in the Middle District suit have claims that could be more appropriately directed at the secretaries.

"In our case, I believe we've identified the proper defendants," Banks said, referring to Corbett and Kane. "We'll leave it to the judge to decide," he said.

U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is presiding over the case. Banks guessed she will rule on the issue in or about March or April.

"We are on the right side of history and making correct constitutional arguments," Banks said. His suit focuses on the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution and the right to travel.

"The real question isn't, 'Who's the proper defendant among state officials?'" he said, but, rather, is there a constitutional violation?

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1386604741362

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.