Funniest Motion to Intervene Ever


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.

Comments

  1. says

    – and it is accruing (sic) to the President – I have every right to capitalize whatever words I see fit.

    Fixed it for him.

    Also, I like that his “either” has 3 choices.

  2. grumpyoldfart says

    …this fallacious bullshit will rightly be laughed at

    Surely it was intended as a joke all along.

  3. John Pieret says

    As a former JAG officer I hang my head in shame that this numbnuts was once one of us. Quite apart from his shaky literacy, the fact that he is stupid enough to think this ploy was going to work with Federal judges is an great embarrassment for all of us who served in the JAG Corps.

  4. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Let him marry his radio and then fry his little pecker off when he tries to consummate. The saddest thing about this is that it demonstrates how tenuous is the grasp of concepts like “informed consent” and even love.

  5. eric says

    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.

    Um…yeah, as Ed says, you seemed to have missed the whole ‘informed consent’ concept.

  6. Larry Kearney says

    Let him marry his radio and then fry his little pecker off when he tries to consummate.

    Those controls on the radio are gonna get awfully sticky.

  7. raven says

    I don’t have a problem with him marrying his clock radio. It doesn’t effect me one way or another.

    He might have a problem registering his marriage but the clock radio won’t care.

    In fact, given his lack of ability to think clearly, it might be best if he confines his romantic attachments to inanimate objects and leave the humans alone.

  8. Pierce R. Butler says

    But what if Chris Sevier’s appliance of choice actually is his beloved sex toy? Checkmate, organicist chauvinists!

  9. dingojack says

    ;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.

    So Larry, on what charge are you going to ‘impeach’ the court’s integrity? Oh, and how are you planning to serve papers on an abstract noun?

    Numbnuts!

    Dingo

  10. Trebuchet says

    One of those “real ER” shows on TV had an episode in which a guy had tried to “marry” his gas grill. It did not go well for him.

  11. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @10. Trebuchet :

    One of those “real ER” shows on TV had an episode in which a guy had tried to “marry” his gas grill. It did not go well for him.

    Think they did something similar perhaps even for a few episodes of ‘Boston Legal’* too yeah?

    * Or whatever it was, the one where Shatner played Denny Crane top unbeaten lawyer and comedic character / caricature.

    ——————

    As for this Sevier homophobe, meh, let him marry his electronic gear if he wants too, whatever floats his boat and doesn’t harm anyone else. At least I’m sure he’ll find it can always be turned on easily!

  12. eric says

    @7:

    I don’t have a problem with him marrying his clock radio. It doesn’t effect me one way or another.

    It lets him use ‘married, head of household’ as his status for tax purposes even though he’s really single. Not sure whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but it probably indirectly affects you one way or the other.

    Now, one can argue that this is a problem arising from an unfair tax code, not a problem to do with any unfairness associated with marrying a toaster. But right or wrong, that’s the law we have now and so yes, his choice to marry a toaster may indirectly affect you.

  13. jaytheostrich says

    How dare you mock this brave man on the frontier of the law! He’s paving the way for marriage to the sexy androids we all know Apple will be marketing in the next 5 years, clearly..

  14. eric says

    I should also add that it might, theoretically, let him claim his toaster or other piece of equipment as a dependent. If so, that would definitely cut down on the taxes he would pay and so negatively (albeit indirectly) affect you.

  15. Lonely Panda, e.s.l. says

    “Porn Addiction” not “Porn Addition”. My Apple failed to protect me from typing the wrong word; I should sue.

  16. sigurd jorsalfar says

    I don’t have a problem with this guy marrying his clock radio either. However, his Vladimir Putin Butt Plug might not like it.

  17. raven says

    However, his Vladimir Putin Butt Plug might not like it.

    If his Vladimir Putin Butt Plug feels neglected, it could always find another…hmmm, well orifice.

  18. dingojack says

    I wonder if the 10th Circuit knows he’s on leave from the Tennessee bar due to mental health issues?
    Dingo

  19. pocketnerd says

    Thus Spake ZaraEd Brayton:

    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 at.

    This counterargument is a wrong number. The “if GAY MARRIAGE, then why can’t I marry my toaster or a goat?” isn’t really about consent — it’s about personhood. Consent is irrelevant to inanimate objects; you’re welcome to boink your toaster, if the mood strikes you (though I don’t advise it). Consent is irrelevant to animals as well; I’m not an expert on bestiality law, but I’m pretty sure boinking your goat would be illegal due to animal cruelty laws, not the presence or absence of consent.

    This is important because people making the “then why can’t I marry my toaster?” argument are quietly dehumanizing same-sex couples. They’re equating at least one half of a same-sex marriage to an animal or an object — not only something without agency or consent but something to which agency and consent are completely and totally irrelevant. And they should be called out for this every time they do. The correct answer is “Because a toaster is an object, and my spouse is not. And you’re a tool for pretending you don’t understand this.”

    (The consent issue does become important for the related “then why can’t I marry a six-year-old?” argument. Then the correct answer is “Because a six-year-old cannot consent to sex or marriage, and my spouse can. And you’re a tool for pretending you don’t understand this.”)

  20. eric says

    Consent is irrelevant to animals as well; I’m not an expert on bestiality law, but I’m pretty sure boinking your goat would be illegal due to animal cruelty laws, not the presence or absence of consent.

    IANAL but…
    Animal cruelty laws are based partly on the notion of consent, so it’s not either/or. We criminalize cruelty because we believe that they have feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc. but cannot give informed consent for some treatment. A human adult, for instance, could give consent to live in their own filth. Its not illegal. But animal rights activists view such treatment of animals as cruel because we don’t believe a dog can make that choice, even if the dog wanted to.

    So yes, consent is very relevant to issues such as animal treatment in general, and it’s very important for fighting the right’s favorite strawman issue in the gay rights’ fight, bestiality.

  21. dmcclean says

    I think the first relevant question here is whether this dude in fact did appear before the clerk’s office asking to marry a machine.

    It seems like a strong possibility that he did not, and instead wrote this nonsensical screed to “make a point”.

    When did this happen? What machine was he seeking to marry? Who was the official who issued the denial? Is there a copy of his application?

    If this didn’t actually occur, surely this filing is perjury.

  22. freehand says

    pocketnerd: The correct answer is “Because a toaster is an object, and my spouse is not. And you’re a tool for pretending you don’t understand this.”

    (The consent issue does become important for the related “then why can’t I marry a six-year-old?” argument. Then the correct answer is “Because a six-year-old cannot consent to sex or marriage, and my spouse can. And you’re a tool for pretending you don’t understand this.”)
    .
    But this is exactly the point. Informed consent is always irrelevant to moral issues for these people. Morality for them is obedience to the king, i.e. God. Obedience is moral, disobedience is immoral. Simple! Thus they have no trouble morally equating gay sex and child molesting, or blasphemy and vandalism. They are genuinely baffled by our outrage at these conflations. They think we want special treatment for certain specific behavior, but they see it all as disobedience (disobedience to them, really, but since they are only speaking for Gawd, then we are giving the finger to GAWD ALMIGHTY and deserve to to suffer for it).
    .
    * Oh they understand the concept, alright. It’s necessary when two men (AKA adults) agree to contracts, such as selling a house, a daughter, or a business.

  23. scienceavenger says

    One other important thing missing is the establishment of an orientation towards machines. The anti-gay marriage crowd just can’t get it through their thick skulls that being gay is not dependent on behavior, nor is it a whimsical choice. It’s an integral part of a person’s psychology. It’s akin having a law protecting people with a fear of heights from being forced to work on skyscraper girders, and them reacting with “well I’m afraid of work, so you can’t make me do anything.” You can’t just say it, you have to be it.

  24. Johnny Vector says

    He needs to get in touch with L. Ron Hoover, at the Firch… at the.. pleh. At the First Church of Appliantology.

    Eventually AI will actually reach the point where it will actually be an actual ethical question as to whether you should be allowed to marry your model XQJ-37 nuclear-powered pan-sexual roto-plooker, but when that time comes there’s a whole lotta other personhood questions that will have to be answered first.

  25. says

    What does the clock radio have to say? Wouldn’t it be embarrassing if they were in the middle of the ceremony and go to the “speak now or forever hold your peace” and the damn thing started beeping? Consent is tricky with machines.

  26. Nihilismus says

    (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;

    To be good satire, you can’t suddenly change your tone in the middle. This is the equivalent of an unclever person saying one thing and then shouting, “NOT!”. . . . Unless the satire here is actually mocking conservative arguments. After all, this choice starts off with with the point about remaining a Christian Nation, but then tries to say the point stands even “religious aside”, which is a good parody of Christians trying like hard to come up with a secular argument while always slipping up and saying in the next breath that it’s about Christianity.

  27. Jordan Genso says

    What do you give as a wedding gift to a man who is marrying his toaster? Another toaster? Or would that be considered an attempt to sabotage the marriage by leading him astray?

  28. anubisprime says

    Of course should the judge comply a slight modification to Asimov’s laws should be considered…cos you know it makes sense!

    1. A Clock radio may not injure a dumbfuck or, through inaction, allow a dumbfuck to come to harm.

    This might result in a non-consummation problem.

    2.A Clock radio must obey the orders given to it by dumbfuck, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    Ditto…

    3.A Clock radio must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    Dumbfuck does not have a middle leg to stand on!

Leave a Reply