Anti-gay marriage equality opponents have always been extremely fond of the slippery slope arguments against marriage equality. However, until now, I've never known of anyone taking it to this level. A Florida man has actually filed a motion to intervene in the federal marriage equality case out of that state, saying that he has fallen for his porn filled Apple computer. Yes, he actually filed a legal brief to that effect. The judge in the case, Judge Robert L. Hinkle (federal district judge for the Northern District of Florida), was not amused by the motion, and unsurprisingly denied Chris Sevier's motion.
Mr. Sevier apparently filed a similar motion to intervene in the Utah marriage equality case as well.
I'll reproduce some of the briefs' quotes below the famous orange design.
From Right Wing Watch:
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.Judge Hinkle responded:
Chris Sevier has moved to intervene, apparently asserting he wishes to marry his computer. Perhaps the motion is satirical. Or perhaps it is only removed from reality. Either way, the motion has no place in this lawsuit. Mr. Sevier has alleged nothing that would support intervention.The following is with regard to his motion in the Utah 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. In his motion in the Utah case, Sevier laid out his totally air-tight argument, warning that marriage equality and the “slippery slope” he warns will ensue will result in Americans “becoming salves of our glands, not slaves of virtue."Mr Sevier writes in the brief:
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 ourglands, not slaves of virtue. There is no other possible alternative.I suppose it's a clever (and funny, to some extent) way to protest marriage equality. However, such antics are quite unlikely to succeed with federal judges who take these issues and the US Constitution much more seriously.
Additional quote from Judge Hinkle's order:
More egregiously, Mr. Sevier has tendered but I have directed the clerk not to file a document that purports to amend the plaintiffs’ amended motion for declaratory and injunctive relief. The tendered document purports to be a “second amended motion for declaratory and injunctive relief,” and it purports to betendered not just by Mr. Sevier on his own behalf but by the original plaintiffs through their own attorneys. Mr. Sevier should take note: he has no authority to tender a document on behalf of anyone other than himself. Filing a document in someone else’s name without the person’s authority is a serious offense; electronically signing or otherwise reproducing an attorney’s signature on a document without the attorney’s authority is a serious offense; and doing any of this again will have substantial consequences.