A man ostensibly trying to protest same-sex marriage has filed a lawsuit because he claims he's being denied the "right" to marry the one whom he loves. The object of his affection being his porn-filled MacBook. Head meet desk.
Amateur model and Army veteran Chris Sevier argues that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then he should be allowed to wed his computer because it's his "preferred sexual object" and he prefers sex with his machine more than sex with "real women." When he tried to file for a marriage license in Utah, it was rejected on the grounds of "sexual orientation." Apparently "you're a numbskull" isn't an official response to this sort of thing.
Sevier is claiming discrimination in his 50-page motion with the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeal. He writes:
They discriminated against me when they rejected my request to marry my computer ... I approached the Utah clerk to have a marriage licence issued for me and my machine-spouse.
The clerk denied my request for a marriage licence … my object of affection was outside the scope of the narrow definition.
If gays have the right to marry their object of sexual desire, even if they lack corresponding sexual parts, then I should have the right to marry my preferred sexual object.
Uh ... I'm not even really sure what to do with that. If we're going to start saying everyone has the right to marry the "object of their sexual desire," then someone better give my number to Gerard Butler, because that Scottish hottie is mine.
The motion continues:
The true question presented here is whether traditional marriage is a relationship that is stand alone and unequal to all other forms of sexual and spiritual unions.
The Constitutionality of the law in dispute narrowly defines marriage between one man and one women, not one man and one man, one woman and one woman, one man and one machine, one man and one animal.
He also cited other cases outside of the U.S. to make his claim. Apparently somewhere in the world a woman married a dolphin, and a Chinese man tied the knot with a cardboard cutout of himself. I have no idea how that works, nor does it have any relevance to United States case law.
I don't care what side of the marriage debate you're on. I don't care if you're someone that believes homosexuality is a sin, or if you want to legally wed your seven wives. I don't care if you think open marriages are the bomb, or if you're a serial monogamist, or if you want kids or can even have kids. But can we agree on one point about marriage please? It should be a union in which all members are willing participants.
A computer does not have the capacity to enter into matrimony of its own volition and free will. In fact, Seviers will likely trade that thing in for a newer model in three to five years anyway, thus blemishing the sanctity of marriage.
Marriage, whatever it is, should not be forced upon anyone or anything. This is why the pedophile and bestiality arguments against same-sex marriage drive me bonkers. It's not the same thing. A child cannot choose to marry an adult. An animal can choose even less.
Adults in same-sex or polygamist unions can make that choice to legally bind themselves together until death or divorce parts them, but a computer cannot. So go ahead and cite statistics, or talk about the slippery slope of treating marriage as anything other than a sacred bond between a man and woman, or discuss how gay marriage will affect religious freedom. But please don't try to marry your computer.
Thankfully a judge called the motion "removed from reality" and ruled against it. Score one point for sanity in the legal system.
Do you think this man's argument is valid?
Image via Ben Ward/Flickr