A Pennsylvania law that effectively bans same-sex marriage is among the first to be targeted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) now that the Supreme Court has struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The organization’s case has just gotten a boost from Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, who happens to support their position.

The 1996 Pennsylvania law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, as DOMA did, and the state does not recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states. On Tuesday, the ACLU filed suit in Federal District Court on behalf of 23 plaintiffs–including the minor children of one same-sex couple–who either want to marry in Pennsylvania or have their marriages from another state recognized. According to the New York Times, the suit cites the Supreme Court’s conclusions, that the plaintiffs are being denied a “status of immense import” and the children of same-sex couples are being deprived of “the integrity and closeness of their own family” when parents aren’t permitted to marry.

Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Kathleen Kane, an elected Democrat, is on the plaintiffs’ side. On Thursday, she made an announcement that she would not defend Pennsylvania’s law. After reading from Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights, she reviewed the examples of other forms of discrimination that have fallen in the commonwealth, such as a ban on interracial marriages, and said:

“It is now time in this state to end another wave of discrimination.”

She quoted from both the U.S. Constitution and that of the state, then concluded:

“I can not defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s version of DOMA where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional.”

Contrasting her duty to state agencies, including the governor’s office–all of which are represented by platoons of good lawyers–with her duty toward the people–who generally are not–she pledged to the state’s citizens:

“As Attorney General, I choose you…Today, we represent everyone who does not have representation.”

[Click to listen to audio of Kathleen Kane’s speech: “I won’t defend Pennsylvania law banning gay marriage.”]

With that, she handed responsibility for defending state law to the office of the governor, who is Republican and an opponent of marriage equality. Kane stated that she was not asking the people of Pennsylvania to believe as she believes, but she does ask them to believe in the Constitution. In fact, a majority of the voters in Pennsylvania DO believe as she does. A poll taken earlier this year showed that 52 percent of registered voters supported marriage equality.

The kind of dilemma that both Kane and the ACLU hope to resolve by fighting for equality is illustrated by two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Helena Miller and Dara Raspberry. The couple was married in Connecticut in 2010, but moved to Pennsylvania to be closer to family once they were ready to have children. Their first daughter was born in May. Since Miller is the one who gave birth, she is listed on the child’s birth certificate. Raspberry is not. In Connecticut, both would have been on the certificate. In an interview with the Washington Post, Raspberry said:

“We have a wonderful family and we get wonderful support from our family and friends. Unfortunately by moving to Pennsylvania, we effectively became unmarried.”

Her words carry tremendous import in thinking about the effect of prejudicial laws like Pennsylvania’s: How many of us have to choose between staying married or being close to family for the sake of our children? How many of us have to fear that our marriages can be dissolved by the simple act of crossing a state line? How many of our children are denied the right to have both parents recognized? And why do we allow this to happen to anyone?