According to a July 11, 2013, press release from the state attorney general’s office, Kathleen Kane stated: “I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s version of DOMA where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional.”
What a firestorm that set off. She had taken an oath, so she was required to defend it. Well, that oath states “I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”
Personally, I never understood how she could have been expected to defend as constitutional a law she believed not to be constitutional. Just because a law has been passed does not mean it is constitutional. Legislatures pass laws that are later struck down all the time. One of the purposes of the judiciary is to make that determination when one is challenged, as the Defense of Marriage Act has been all across the country.
And now it appears U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (a George W. Bush appointee) has vindicated Ms. Kane’s opinion. Guess she made a good call after all.