Homosexuality has been around for millennia. After all, the Bible has admonitions and warnings against it.
Over the centuries, societies, even whole civilizations, however, recognized that homosexual “marriage” was a reach too far.
Until five activist judges on the U.S. Supreme, including Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, who advocated for “gay marriage” while the case was pending before the court by performing such ceremonies, created it in the United States.
Now a movement is under way to expand the right to marriage to include laptop computers.
So far, the plaintiffs have been unsuccessful in convincing the courts that the U.S. Constitution, which does not mention marriage, should be reinterpreted to support a right to marry an inanimate object or an animal.
“Of course this case sounds ridiculous,” said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, which has defended Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis in her fight to not be forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of her religious beliefs.
“To marry a laptop computer or a parrot is nonsense, but the same was said about same-sex marriage, and yet there are now five lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court who pulled that rabbit out of a hat,” Staver said.
“From time immemorial, marriage has been the union of a man and a woman. The natural created order, the law of nature and revealed law establish the male-female paradigm. For millennia of human history, earthly law and custom affirmed the natural law. Deconstructing nature comes with a price. Unfortunately, children will be directly affected by the deconstruction of natural marriage,” Staver said.
Liberty Counsel was drawn into the extremists’ claims because they sued Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis. She spent several days in jail by order of U.S. District Judge David Bunning for refusing to have her name on marriage licenses for same-sex couples.
Bunning also threatened Davis’ co-workers with consequences if they didn’t issue the marriage licenses.
Liberty Counsel was a key defender of Davis throughout the dispute, which ended only weeks ago when the courts refused the ACLU’s demand for $231,000 in legal fees from Davis because they didn’t win the case.
U.S. District Judge Henry Wilhoit Jr. dismissed the claims that had been brought by Chris Sevier, who claimed he has a “constitutional right to marry his laptop computer,” and Elizabeth Ording, who “claims she has a constitutional right to marry an animal.”
Wilhoit was brief in addressing the claims.
“Plaintiffs are asking this court to recognize their constitutional right to marry an inanimate object and an animal. No such constitutional rights exist, nor are any known constitutional rights violated by the denial of a marriage license under these circumstances.
“In short, the plaintiffs have failed to identify a single constitutional injury. Nor can plaintiffs establish a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest, which would support a claim for the deprivation of due process.”
He concluded, “There is simply no law which supports their claims.”
The argument is not unlike a U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued only a year before the Obergefell case in which the justices created same-sex “marriage.” In the earlier ruling, the court claimed that the province of regulating marriage was a responsibility of the state, and no law allowed the federal government to interfere.
The Obergefell decision reversed the previous ruling.
Davis’ dispute arose shortly after the ruling. She decided to treat all comers alike and not issue any marriage licenses.
Bunning ordered her to violate her faith and then jailed her when she declined.
Later, a new Kentucky governor, Matt Bevin, signed an executive order allowing Davis not to use her name for such documents. The legislature later made it law, resolving the case against Davis.