Florida man seeks to marry his Apple Computer (no, really!)

It's FREE

Post Views: 98

Editor’s Note:
This article is from C|Net.com, and it is real.

But it’s the very daftness that makes one wonder about life, law, and technology.

I present to you today a man who tried to intervene in an ACLU lawsuit against Florida on the subject of gay marriage.

This lawsuit challenges Florida’s refusal to recognize gay marriages from other states.

Chris Sevier, however, insists that this lawsuit needs his intervention on behalf of “other minority sexual orientation groups.” He equates his thought process to gay couples having “the right to marry their object of sexual desire, even if they lack corresponding sexual parts.”

As the Broward New Times reports, Sevier believes he should have the right to marry his “preferred sexual object.” And that would be his “porn-filled Apple computer.”

You might wonder why, if it is porn-filled, Sevier would like to marry this computer.

It surely wouldn’t be the ideal dinner-party companion, being clearly far too rude. It certainly wouldn’t appeal to one’s parents on a home visit. And what if it crashes halfway through a night’s clubbing?

Sevier’s filing states: “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.”

At this point, you may recollect the name “Chris Sevier.” For this may well be the same Chris Sevier who last year tried to sue Apple because his computer didn’t come with an automatic porn-filter.

Let’s skip to the happy ending. The U.S. District Court judge in the ACLU case, Robert Hinkle, offered a succinct summation of Sevier’s most recent intervention: “Perhaps the motion is satirical. Or perhaps it is only removed from reality. Either way, the motion has no place in this lawsuit.”

There’s a certain poetry in the concept of a legal motion being “removed from reality.”

These days, there seem to be so many tech-focused legal cases that only view reality from a peculiar distance.

The question is whether anything can be done to stop them.