A Man Just Sued Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Because He Can’t Legally Marry His Computer July 2, 2016

A Man Just Sued Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Because He Can’t Legally Marry His Computer

It would take a lot to make me feel bad for Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis… but this lawsuit against her may do the trick.

Chris Sevier
Chris Sevier

It helps to have a little background first.

1) Tennessee attorney Chris Sevier sued Apple in 2013 because they make computers that let him access pornography, and HE CAN’T HANDLE ALL THAT PORNOGRAPHY.

Apple’s product was not adequately equipped with safety features that would have otherwise blocked unwarranted intrusions of pornographic content that systematically poisoned his life.

In using safari, the Plaintiff accidentally misspelled “facebook.com” which lead him to “fuckbook.com” and a host of web sites that caused him to see pornographic images that appealed to his biological sensibilities as a male and lead to an unwanted addiction with adverse consequences.

The Plaintiff became totally out of synch in his romantic relationship with his wife, which was a consequence of his use of his Apple product. The Plaintiff began desiring, younger more beautiful girls featured in porn videos than his wife, who was no longer 21.

I just want to point out: If you type “fuckbook” instead of “facebook,” that’s not a typo. There’s something much more Freudian going on…

2) Sevier, unsuccessful in that case and needing a new way to release all that pent-up frustration, sued the state of Florida because officials wouldn’t allow him to marry his computer. Because all that porn made him want to put a ring on it.

Ever since one state in the union legalized “same-sex marriage,” a proverbial “crack in the damn” has been created, so that now all states are forced to, despite the majority’s decision to band same-sex marriage.

This guy graduated Vanderbilt Law School and he still hasn’t figured out that whole “grammar” and “spelling” thing… I don’t know if that speaks highly of him or poorly of Vandy.

Who is to say that a person cannot “love” their dog more than one of the Plaintiffs “loves” a member of the same-sex? If the Plaintiffs can marry a person of the same sex, then others should have the right to marry their dog, pillow, blowup doll, computer, and any other object they can have sex with and want to marry.

I’m still trying to figure out how you have sex with a computer…

Anyway, that lawsuit didn’t go anywhere, either. The judge wrote, “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.”

3) Sevier, still certain that he was going to win this case SOMEWHERE, filed the same damn lawsuit in Texas this past April.

Essentially, he is trying to give courts an ultimatum: Agree that this is what they have done and allow him to make vows to a piece of expensive chrome, or realize that this is morally wrong and undo Obergefell.

“[This lawsuit] is not a matter of who’s on the right side of history,” Sevier said. “This is about who is on the right side of reality. Are we just delusional?”

I assume he said that last line while looking into a mirror.

4) Sevier, fresh off that waste of time, filed the same lawsuit last week in Utah.

During a Skype interview, FOX 13 News’ Dora Scheidell asked Sevier if he’s sexually attracted to his computer.

“Whatever a person has sex with they can bond with,” he said. “This is getting into nasty facts stuff, and the truth is that’s engaging in private intimacy matters, and that’s completely irrelevant for the purposes of federal court, and it’s completely irrelevant for the legal matters at hand.”

I can’t believe Scheidell agreed to a Skype interview. Does she have any idea what he does with that computer’s headphone jack?!

5) And that brings us to Sevier’s most recent attempt at legalizing love. He bravely visited the Rowan County courthouse in Kentucky, where Kim Davis works, only to be turned away by some of her employees who said he couldn’t marry an inanimate object. He filed a lawsuit over the exchange yesterday and you can read it right here.

The Plaintiff became classically conditioned to prefer sex with inanimate objects. He feels love for an inanimate object in the same way that members of the same-sex can cultivate and act upon a sexual attraction to member of the same-sex.

The State cannot deny the Plaintiff’s marriage request simply because the drafter of the new marriage definition find gay marriage morally acceptable but man-machine marriage morally repugnant.

The Plaintiff and his children are denied dignity interest and benefits otherwise afforded to same-sex individuals and opposite sex individuals who are married.

The plaintiff had an overseas marriage with an inanimate object spouse — through skype, but the state of Kentucky refuses to recognize that marriage due to what Justice Kennedy calls “bigotry” in step with his moral superiority complex that is comparable to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s in some respects.

But despite those other marriages, the Plaintiff wants to have Kentucky issue him a new marriage license in step with his self-proclaimed sexual orientation in accordance with the same rights issued to those who self-identify as homosexual, transgender, bi-sexual, and other labels that the Plaintiff is not familiar with but the LGBT gestapo is.

Like I said… after all that, you almost feel bad for Kim Davis.

That is, until you realize that many of her supporters believe exactly as Sevier does: That legalization of same-sex marriage began a slippery slope that will eventually lead to legal marriages between man and child, man and dog, and — why not? — man and machine.

Someone call Mike Huckabee and cue up “Eye of the Tiger.” Davis may be winning another case very soon.

(Screenshot via Fox 13. Thanks to Tony for the link)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!