Friday, May 9, 2014

Judge: Florida man can't marry his 'porn-filled' computer

Cats, Dogs, and Computers, Oh My

Posted by Chris Haire on Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Over the past few days, I've seen a host of told-you-see headlines and tweets from the fundamentalist fringes of conservative society — or at least rabble-rousing missives from the snake-oil rapscallions who prey upon the pious and the purityrannical — bemoaning the fact that the legalization of gay marriage will one day lead to a world in which a man can marry, gasp, a computer.

Never mind the fact that this latest bit of fundie heavy-breathing was inspired by a court ruling which denied a man's fight to marry his computer. And we can all just ignore the fact that this whole hullabaloo was nothing more than an anti-same-sex-marriage stunt orchestrated by an anti-same-sex asshole in order to prove a point. UPI reports:
Chris Sevier, a Florida man who is allegedly against the idea of gay marriage, filed a motion to marry his "porn-filled Apple computer" in an attempt to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging the state's recognition of same-sex marriages.

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,” Sevier wrote in the motion.
Sigh. 

The problem here is that Sevier, along with the pandorable half-wits who believe that same-sex marriage opens the door to man-dog marriages, just doesn't understand the most fundamental part of the civil union contract: it has to be between consenting parties. That's, well, how contracts work.

So you can't marry cat, computer, or the skeleton in your closet. Microwave ovens are off-limits and so are toilet bowl brushes. And so are kids. They can't consent. They can only be coerced, either by their parents or by the flawed hormonal impulses coursing through their adolescent bodies. (Which is why, of course, no child under the accepted legal age of adulthood — 18 — should be allowed to marry at any time, regardless of the circumstances. They can't vote, they can't drink, they can't read Alison Bechdel's "Fun Home," they can't get married.)

Of course, this doesn't mean that polygamy is off the table. It's not. The same logic that defeated the Defense of Marriage Act — namely that marriage is only between a single pairing of a man and woman — surely applies to sister wives and their husbands: three or more people agree to a contract and promise to live under a civil union. There's is simply no legal justification for why a marriage must be between two parties, only tradition. Saying that it can only be between two parties is just as discriminatory as saying it must be between a man and woman. Then again, that's just my legal opinion, and I'm no lawyer. But make no mistake, someday someone will make that argument and they'll win. The precedent has been sent.

And if we're to follow legal precedents, in particular those that have been set by the U.S. Supreme Court, then we must prepare ourselves the most shocking marriage ruling of them all: the ability of a man or woman to marry a corporation. After all, corporations are people too — or at least that's how the Supreme Court has ruled — and if the Board of Directors of a corporation votes to enter a union with another party, then I just don't know how anyone will be able to stop them.

So if you want to win the heart of Apple, I suggest you better start penning sonnets and sending flowers now. 

Oh, and be sure to send me an invitation to the wedding. I promise I won't drink all the booze.


Tags: ,


Comments (5)

Showing 1-5 of 5

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-5 of 5

Add a comment

Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2014, Charleston City Paper   RSS