A federal judge in Arizona won't be deciding whether people can marry their computers — at least not yet.
In a brief order Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick rejected a request by Chris Sevier to be allowed to intervene in a case he is hearing about whether there is a constitutional right of gays to wed. He said what Sevier is asking is unrelated to the issues.
Challengers want the judge to void a 2008 voter-approved state constitutional amendment declaring that marriage in Arizona is solely between one man and one woman. They contend denying them that right based available to others, based solely on their sexual orientation, violates equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Sevier who has a record of similar claims in other states, argued to Sedwick his right to marry an inanimate object, also now precluded under state law, should also be protected as part of the same lawsuit.
The judge in his order, said Sevier's motion lacks merits because what his interests are not the same as those who filed the original lawsuit.
“His own motion papers show that he wants to expand the class of plaintiffs rather than participate because he is a member of the class of people involved in the litigation,” Sedwick wrote.
Anyway, the judge said, it's not like being locked out of this case leaves no options.
“If Mr. Sevier desires to marry his computer, he should file his own lawsuit,” the judge said.
Sevier, unaware of the ruling until contacted, said he just might do that.
He is no stranger to such unusual litigation. In fact he previously tried to get a court in Florida to give him permission to marry his computer, calling it his “preferred sexual object.”
Sevier has sued Apple and Hewlett Packard in federal court, contending that their failure to install protections on their machines against pornography got him addicted to it — which is why he wants to marry his computer in the first place.
Sevier insisted his intervention efforts are not an effort to undermine the lawsuit. But Sevier also expressed some clear hostility to gays, say they “try to recruit people” to their lifestyle.
The motion to intervene was opposed by lawyers for both challengers to the law and the state Attorney General's Office which is defending the law.