Florida Man Says He Wants to "Marry My Porn Filled Apple Computer" in Federal Gay Marriage Case

Categories: WTFlorida

Newmacbookpro.jpg
Lijorijo via wikimedia commons
Three way.
A Florida gay marriage case -- known in the federal court system as James Domer Brenner et al., v. Rick Scott, which challenges Florida's refusal to recognize gay marriages that are performed legally elsewhere (Brenner and his partner married in Canada) -- is sure to be one of the landmark court decisions to grind through the Sunshine State. But at least one person is elbowing in to make his own point.

Enter Chris Sevier, "a former Judge Advocate and combat veteran" who filed a motion to intervene on the Florida gay marriage case on behalf of "other minority sexual orientation groups."

In the 24-page document, Sevier says that if gay couples "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."

Which is?

"My porn filled Apple computer," according to Sevier's filing.

Recently, I purchased an Apple computer. The computer was sold to me without filters to block out pornography. I was not provided with any warning by Apple that pornography was highly addictive and could alter my reward cycle by the manufacturer. Over time, I began preferring sex with my computer over sex with real women. Naturally, I 'fell in love' with my computer and preferred having sex with it over all other persons or things, as a result of classic conditioning upon orgasm.

Short on sound legal grounding (and even shorter on wit), Sevier's filing is obviously an attempt to punk the legal system because he doesn't agree with gay marriage (as he says in the filing, "sexual orientation" never existed as a classification until President Obama came along to advance his "social agenda to make America a 'gay nation.'"

Sevier says he's here to make the courts "put up or shut up" on the equal protection argument upon which the push for gay marriage is based. He obviously thinks his obnoxious argument makes some point.

This seems to be part of his MO, clogging the legal system with ridiculous claims and troglodyte thinking. A Chris Sevier sued Apple because it sold him a computer without telling him about the evils of porn. A Chris Sevier sued A&E after it fired Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson after he was caught spewing antigay talk. And just recently, a Chris Sevier tried to butt his way into Utah's gay marriage legal case. In a 50-page motion, he claimed he was there to make the court "put up or shut up" on the gay marriage issue.

Fortunately, here in Florida, the federal judge manning the gay marriage case has tossed Sevier for now. "Chris Sevier has moved to intervene, apparently asserting he wishes to marry his computer," Judge Robert Hinkle wrote in an April 24 ruling. "Perhaps the motion is satirical. Or perhaps it is only removed from reality. Either way, the motion has no place in this lawsuit."

Score one for common sense. Then again, it's a little depressing to see what gets flushed out of the weeds by a little progress.



My Voice Nation Help
45 comments
chloe.elisabeth.crai
chloe.elisabeth.crai

This reminds me of the gay marriage argument I heard pertaining to ancient Greece.
Homosexual relationships were common, but marriage was only between a man and a woman. This was a recognized fact due to the very nature of marriage. 


Really guys, let's face it right here and now. In a homosexual marriage (or ANY marriage outside of a church), the only reason to get married is for legal benefits. We have stripped away the original purpose of marriage (which is to say, it being a union under God by the Catholic church) and now it has absolutely nothing to do with more than a cheap public proclamation and some government benefits. That's the only reason this debate exists at all: because when marriage means SO little, why does it matter who takes part in it?
As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to secular marriage, a man might as well marry his computer. 

Pretty much the only objection against gay marriage that Catholics have so far is the name. "Marriage" is a poor copy of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. That's simply a fact. Once, marriage had to be performed in a church, by a priest, by way of a nuptial mass, between a man and a woman, and it was forever. Always. If you did not want every single one of those requirements, you simply did not get married. Then we took away the priest and the mass requirement, then we took away the church requirement, then we took away the "forever" requirement, and now we're taking away the man and the woman. What is the point in still calling it marriage when it scarcely has anything to do with what marriage is supposed to be?
Marriage will never change within the Catholic church; whether gay marriage or Protestant marriage or divorce or whatever exists, we will never sway. But it is an insult to call such secular ceremonies "marriage" and the Church cannot condone it.  Basically what we are saying is, accept what makes a marriage a marriage...or don't get "married" at all. 

I'm absolutely certain that if we keep on this way, it will come full circle. We will continue to strip away what makes a marriage a marriage until finally marriage as a secular notion simply ceases to exist. You can already see people saying "We decided not to get married; it's really only a slip of paper", and I can tell it will continue on that way. There is no other Catholic sacrament that has carried over to secular life in that way (baptism, confession, communion, confirmation, holy orders, last rites - there is nothing resembling or supposed to resemble them outside the Catholic Church), so why should marriage? It shouldn't, and it can't last.

However, as a Catholic Church, we would rather this happen sooner than later.

fireman452
fireman452

I was just watching a video with Linda Bloodworth Thomason - the person who produced and directed the TV show Designing Women and others - and she just did the award winning documentary about Tom Bridegroom - title - Bridegroom.  In that interview she said she often sees people - just like many of the commentators on here say - this is the end of civilization (as they did when inter-racial marriages were legalized) and now you are going to see a man marry his monkey.  And she said she always replies - if you get a wedding invite from a man and his monkey - I suggest you reply that you are going to be out of town that weekend.  


For those that have used this argument - once again the Right wing nuts have their own self fulling prophecy here - they said this would happen and then one of their own decides that since this has NOT happened - well, lets just do it so we can point to my crazy escapade and say SEE we told you so.  Well folks, the State of Tenn. has stripped Sevier of his Law License due to mental incapacity/illness - and he is currently under indictment in Tenn for stalking the country music singer John Rich and a 17 year old girl (trial date is set for October)  so rant all you want - it is not going to change a thing.  The US is finally figuring that MAYBE we should join the rest of the civilized world - Canada did this YEARS ago and god has not reined down hell fire on them - in fact if you really look closely they are doing a LOT better in many ways than we are and the folks in Canada are really easy to get along with.  I should know i got married there and my husband is a wonderful guy - we have been together for 26 years - and married for 5 of them.  

Lins
Lins

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

glenn722
glenn722

It's just a matter of time before we see marriages between animals and/or children here in the US. The gay community has opened the floodgates with their demand of equality in marriage. The legal precedent has been set which goes a long way in Americas courtrooms. Citizens that voice their concerns about the lack of morality in our country are now vilified by the courts and the mainstream press. First time ever in this once great nation.

MrSmartyPants
MrSmartyPants

Who are you to deny him his "Marriage Equality"?  Its none of your business.  I can't wait to see him adopt a child.

terrafirmavita
terrafirmavita

Unlike an adult human being, a computer can neither give consent to a marriage, nor sign a marriage license. So, this argument is utterly superfluous.

henchap9
henchap9

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."  -- Justice Anthony Kennedy


Who is this judge to deny this man his heart's desire?  The judge is guilty of a failure of sufficiently progressive imagination.  Forty years ago it was no less unthinkable that marriage could be extended to people of the same sex.

schwimmerdo
schwimmerdo

Men, who marry women, marry their "object of desire", too.
Playing around with words and definitions is typical for those, who haven't got real arguments.

The right definition is: Two grown-up people, who love each other are allowed to marry.

docrt925
docrt925

if he equates his computer with a legal human adult able to give informed consent, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by his ignorant, illogical and juvenile lawsuits...and maybe we should be recommending appropriate counseling services, instead of holding him up to public ridicule and scorn. just a thought.

rayharwick
rayharwick

Looks like his computers are only 3 years old. Does he realize that you can't marry at that age?

rayharwick
rayharwick

It's understandable why this guy isn't already married.

riverrat69
riverrat69 topcommenter

I'm also for it. He can also marry his pet rock and live in bigamy in Utah.

megahoboriffic
megahoboriffic

i'm all for it, let him marry his computer...that's kind of sad tho.

polishbear
polishbear

The only thing Gay couples seek is the right to be treated equally with Straight couples. Unless the Constitution applies only to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), there is no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.


All this wailing and gnashing of teeth about people marrying their pets or their computers is just a red herring.

caust001
caust001

@chloe.elisabeth.crai  Marriage is not a Catholic invention.  People were getting married in ancient China and Japan long before any western influence touched those countries.  Atheists and other non-Christians are able to get married and I can't say I've ever heard someone claim that they shouldn't have that right.


If the Catholic Church wants to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, that's their prerogative.  The Catholic Church, however, does not have the right to legally define marriage for the rest of the country.

MrSmartyPants
MrSmartyPants

@glenn722  If we protest we will be charged with a hate crime and put in re-education camps.

Lins
Lins

@glenn722  Two consenting adults exercising equal protection under the law.  No "floodgates."  Glenn Beck, is that you?

Lins
Lins

@henchap9  Or people of different ethnicity.  How'd that one work out? 

glenn722
glenn722

That's your definition not mine.

henchap9
henchap9

@schwimmerdo    Your definition is every bit as arbitrary, exclusionary and self-serving as was confining marriage to people of different sexes.

Why should marriage be confined to just "two people".  Or to grown-ups?

Your definition also omitted several other currently applicable arbitrary conditions.

That marriage be barred to those who are:

related by blood within a certain degree (no sibling or parent-child marriage)


already married to another.


who wish to be married in groups.





timmy.bear
timmy.bear

@riverrat69  - I realize you're trying to be sarcastic, but just so you know, bigamy is illegal in Utah.  I have friends who are LDS who are really kind of tired of those jokes, since they're 120 years out of date at least. ;)

fireman452
fireman452

@polishbear Finally a voice of reason in this posting - as one of the FOUR people in the federal lawsuit that Sevier tried to intervene in, I thank you.  One thing that was not said in the article.  This guy is currently under indictment in Tenn. for stalking John Rich and a 17 year old girl.  In addition to that he has filed suits against A&E, Apple Computer and recently filed to intervene in the Utah same gender marriage case.  And if you google him look at the picture of him with the American Flag draped over his nude boy with the red liquid - blood??? flowing down his shoulder and a plastic skull in his left hand - ahhh you think this guy just MIGHT be a few sandwiches short of a picnic?? 

MrSmartyPants
MrSmartyPants

@polishbear  The same sex relationship isn't the same as a straight relationship so why should it be treated equally?

MrSmartyPants
MrSmartyPants

@Lins Under what law?  The law says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Lins
Lins

@henchap9 @schwimmerdo  One person can legally marry another person.  That's equal protection under the law.  If you want to legalize polygamy, go for it, but it's not the same.

docrt925
docrt925

because marriage is a contract.

riverrat69
riverrat69 topcommenter

@timmy.bear LDS should be out of date. Change your magic underwear and beam yourself up to the planet KOLOB.

MrSmartyPants
MrSmartyPants

@fireman452 Wow that is some weird stuff.  But it certainly isn't as weird as sticking a penis in another man's anus.  

MrSmartyPants
MrSmartyPants

@Lins One person can legally marry another person OF THE OPPOSITE SEX.  You left that part out.

gingram2
gingram2

@MrSmartyPants @colorfulldarkness  "It is going to teach us that homosexuality is normal" 


It is normal, like I asked earlier and you refused to reply at what point did you decide you are heterosexual? When did you make that choice? 

fireman452
fireman452

@MrSmartyPants @fireman452  seems you are very interested in gay SEX, which by the way does not in anyway define an adult relationship, it shows a very juvenile perspective - and before you fire off another tirade like the other ones on here - maybe you should take a look on youtube at a video "it could happen to you" by shane crone.  Then, if you have anything above the neck and are capable of comprehending what you see there, you just MIGHT be able to understand that your statement belongs with the mentality of those in a playpen

MrSmartyPants
MrSmartyPants

@colorfulldarkness  Me ignorant?  No sorry all the ignorance is with you on this issue. It affects all of our lives if the definition of a marriage is changed to meet such a ridiculously low standard.  First of all if you change it then there will be nothing special about marriage.  In other countries that endorse same sex marriage like in Norway illegitimacy birth rates have skyrocketed because marriage is no longer seen about having children it is about coupling.  So over time here in America if the same endorsement is given the same thing will happen.  The rise in single parent households will explode and the need for more government spending on social programs will explode. Therefore we all pay higher and higher taxes to meet the financial burdens of these programs.  Secondly homosexuality is a destructive behavior to your long term health.  It's practice can result in abnormally high rates of STDs, AIDS, Colon rectal cancer, and hepatitis.  Homosexual men account for 82% of all known AIDS cases as of 2006 and 60% of all syphilis cases.  So what do these men that contract these diseases at alarmingly high rates do?  They go to the doctor right?  Well do you pay for health insurance premiums I KNOW I DO.  if your health insurance company is spending millions of dollars to treat victims of homosexual behavior where does that money come from?  The health insurance company YES and where do they get it from?  US!!  So that affects me again.  The truth of the matter is that in countries that endorse same sex marriages they have found through research that 96% of the homosexuals never get married.  Changing the definition of marriage isn't going to result in just "people who love each other being happy"  It is going to teach us that homosexuality is normal and more and more people will practice the behavior because the law says it is "normal" when it is not and society as a whole including homosexuals will all be worse off in the long run. Because the diseases will continue to spread and illegit birth will continue to skyrocket.  

colorfulldarkness
colorfulldarkness

@mrsmartypants You're just ignorant. How does it affect your own life in any way who marries who depending on their sexual orientation? Anyone that still worries about this needs to get with the times. And about this article, the guy obviously needs some help, the end.

bennyboi13
bennyboi13

@MrSmartyPants  If you believe it is so easy to change who you love and want to marry and even the gender of who you are attracted to, why don't you prove it, go find someone of your own gender and fall in love and marry them since that is apparently so easy. 

MrSmartyPants
MrSmartyPants

@Lins  Well if it is EXACTLY the same as you say it is then why not marry a member of the opposite sex and be done with it?

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Services

Loading...