Tennessee man seeks to join Kitchen v. Herbert case in order to marry computer

In a motion filed Friday, a former attorney from Brentwood, Tenn. has asked to be included as an additional plaintiff in the Kitchen v. Herbert marriage equality case being heard by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mark Christopher Sevier filed the motion with the court, arguing that he had also been damaged by Utah’s marriage ban when he attempted to obtain a marriage license for himself and a machine. In his 50-page brief, Sevier argues that “The Constitutionality of the law in dispute narrowly defines marriage between ‘one man and one women (sic),’ 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.”

He argues that if two men or two women are allowed to marry, he should be allowed to marry a machine or an animal. Sevier’s motion, however, is without mention of sentience or consent.

Sevier’s license to practice law was placed on “disability inactive” status by the State of Tennessee due to a ruling of mental instability which made him incapable of effectively representing clients.

Since that time, Sevier has faced a number of legal troubles, including being arrested for stalking country singer John Rich and a 17-year-old female employee of a Ben & Jerry’s store in Nashville. He allegedly sent the photo above to Rich in an email and made direct reference to his (Rich’s) two young sons. He is currently free on bond, but has been ordered to wear a GPS locator.

Sevier has previously filed frivolous lawsuits, including suing both A & E and President Barack Obama over the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, as well as suing Apple for not preventing pornography on his computer.

Sevier’s suit seems an attempt to undermine the plaintiff’s argument, bringing back the “slippery slope” theory that allowing same-sex marriage will result in legalized marriage to machines and animals. This theory fails, of course, as neither machines nor animals are considered legal adults capable of providing informed consent under law.

Matt Spencer, communications director of Restore Our Humanity, the group funding Kitchen v. Herbert, added, “I find it sad and absurd that this clearly disturbed man would make light of the genuine loving relationships of the LGBTQ communities seeking equal marriage rights, not just in Utah but nationwide.”

Recommend to friends
  • gplus
  • pinterest

About the Author

Bob Henline

Bob Henline is the Assistant Editor of QSalt Lake Magazine, as well as a columnist and social/political activist and amateur chef.

Leave a comment