My friend Todd Heywood sent me a link to this legal filing in the Utah same-sex marriage appeal in the 10th Circuit. A guy named Chris Sevier, apparently representing himself, has filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the case because he wants to marry his clock radio (or some unspecified machine) and his interest isn’t represented. It’s a motion so badly written that even Larry Klayman would be embarrassed so submit it.
NOW COMES, I, Chris Sevier, former Judge Advocate/combat veteran, pursuant to F.R.A.P 15.2, F.R.C.P. 24(a), and 24(b). I was personally injured by the same Defendants under identical circumstances except that I attempted to marry a machine, not another man, at the clerk’s office. The difference between myself and the Plaintiffs is that we are in different classes of sexual orientation. The same clerk’s office referred me to the same laws at issue, when it deny (sic) my request as it did the Plaintiffs. I have been equally injured and I have standing for the same reasons that the Plaintiffs have sighted (sic) in their brief and complaint. Symbolically, my intervention may represent the other minority sexual orientation groups, whose interest (sic) are not regarded by the existing Appellants. Even the Defendants stipulate that all sexual orientation classes must have equal protection and due process rights extended to them if traditional marriage is redefined, under their slippery slope arguments. The largest minority should not be the only protect (sic) class under the equal protection clause. Imagine, if during the civil rights movement, a group of African Americans argued to have expansion of the equal protection clause to protect just their race alone, but did not move the Court to expand protections to races that are red, brown, and yellow. (All races are covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for good reason. To permit selective protections of certain classes would yield unjust and absurd results that are so severe that they threaten National (sic) security because hypocrisy will have been introduced into foundational laws marking our National (sic) identity. The true question presented here is whether traditional marriage is a relationship that is stand alone (sic) and unequal to all other forms of sexual and spiritual unions. I leave that for the Courts to decide, but if sexual orientation is a protected class – and it is accruing (sic) to the President – I have every right to capitalize on the fruits of the Plaintiffs adult centered conquest for all of the arguments they have set forth in their briefs. I join them.
Randomly capitalized words? Check. Using the wrong words multiple times? Check. Using a parenthesis and not closing it? Check. Brilliant! So why won’t you let him marry a photocopier?
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 which violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection clause of all classes of sexual orientation, not just same-sex orientation. The Court cannot provide partial expansion of the equal protection clause, and leave behind all other classes in the name of tolerance and “equality without impeaching the entire integrity of the Courts. There is not a single solitary example where the Appellees consider the interest of other sexual orientation classes in their voluminous pleadings. Therefore, the true minorities interest is left in the cold short of an intervention. So, I beg for intervention, for the Court’s sake, so that it can get a complete picture of what is at stake in reaching a sound comprehensive decision. A decision here will effect our National identify and the integrity of our laws one way or another. Now that I have moved here, one of three things must occur. Either (1) we will be reduced to a Nation that hypocritically enforces the equal protection and due process clause to suit the interest of the largest minority, which yields discrimination against the true minority classes of sexual orientation, causing hypocrisy to undermine foundation laws, yielding instability; (2) we will remain a Christian Nation that protects traditional marriage, as a relationship set apart because it has the potential of bearing life between two people, who are in a legally binding relationship, who have naturally corresponding sexual organs with the exclusive potential to produce children with DNA that matches theirs; which, of course, makes that relationship both scientifically and factually distinct from all others – religious aside; or (3) we will progress into a Nation that gives equal protection to all classes of sexual orientation allowing everyone to marrying anyone and anything to suit their appetite in the name of tolerance, equality, and love – becoming slaves of our glands, not slaves of virtue. There is no other possible alternative. The evidence shows that United States has always been a Nation that shapes its laws on conviction, not feeling. But tradition is under attack so neither I nor the Plaintiffs apologize for that.
You get it? He’s being incredibly clever, isn’t he? There is this one really important thing missing, of course, and that’s consent. When your toaster oven can consent to your relationship, we can talk about it. Until then, your attempt to undermine the case for equality with this fallacious bullshit will rightly be laughed atj.
Like Dispatches on Facebook: