• Source: Wikimedia
  • Same-Sex Marriage Is Theft Of Different-Sex Marriage Says Straight Couple In Federal Court Filing

    A different-sex couple is filing to defend the ban on gay couples marrying in Kansas, claiming, in essence, same-sex marriage has robbed them of their property, namely, their heterosexual marriage.

    A Kansas criminal and family lawyer and his wife have filed papers in federal court to join in the defense of the Sunflower State's ban on same-sex marriage, and their claim is unique.

    Phillip and Sandra Unruh say that same-sex marriage is actually theft of property rights -- the property being their marriage, or different-sex marriage in general.

    In a motion filed in United States District Court, the Unruh's state that if same-sex couples are legally allowed to marry in Kansas, "the meaning of marriage will be so fundamentally and profoundly changed that the Unruh’s will experience a taking of their property rights in marriage without due process of law.”

    The filing also refers to the Bible, Genesis 2:24, and uses the failed argument that they have the right to marry because they can produce children, whereas same-sex couples cannot, via intercourse.

    The Unruhs also state that same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage are as different "as apples and oranges," and claim property rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    “The Unruhs have a [sic] inalienable property right in their marriage that is protected by the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Kansas Constitution and related Kansas Statutes," they claim.

    Unsurprising, given the spelling error on Phillip Unruh's webpage, the filing too is replete with spelling errors.

    errors.jpg

    Exasperated, HRC writes, "We just can’t with this one."

    We agree.

    The filing can be read here, thanks to Equality Case Files.

     

    Image via Wikimedia

    Get weekly news & updates
    Subscribe
    Support our work DONATE



    Register to VOTE

    Showing 20 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2014-10-26 23:19:20 -0400
      Stephan, you’re not listening. No number of voters are allowed to vote in an illegal law. The federal court was not only well within its jurisdiction, it was doing the job it exists for – preventing the majority from shoving in illegal laws. If you don’t like it, you’re going to have to get the constitution itself changed.

    • commented 2014-10-26 21:46:10 -0400
      Im speaking for the other states thst the gays went to the courts to over ride the voters not just one place but all states and voters like I said the gov should have to follow what we as voters say not the courts and that it is supost to be that the gov is for the people by the people and not for courts or the government from stat or federal to over step the voters and the bans should stand in all states that voted for the bans and wonand made it law thats what im saying

    • commented 2014-10-26 14:27:26 -0400
      @stephan MONSE
      The constitution explicitly makes it the Court’s job to step in and remove laws, even those that are voted on by the people, that go against the constitution. It’s part of the checks and balances concept of our government. The majority vote does not override the civil and constitutional rights of others, and no matter what the opposition claims, giving the benefits of marriage to one group of people while denying it to another group of people is exactly that. It’s unconstitutional, and therefore it cannot be allowed. The fact that the courts are the ones that had to make this a realization is simply the result of Gays being forced to take that measure to ensure the equality that they are promised when in this country.

    • commented 2014-10-25 23:32:58 -0400
      Im speaking for the other states thst the gays went to the courts to over ride the voters not just one place but all states and voters like I said the gov should have to follow what we as voters say not the courts and that it is supost to be that the gov is for the people by the people and not for courts or the government from stat or federal to over step the voters and the bans should stand in all states that voted for the bans and wonand made it law thats what im saying

    • commented 2014-10-25 10:54:27 -0400
      How is this even vaguely “theft”?

      RationalWiki is right- this is indeed the dumbest excuse ever for opposing same-sex marriage. The misspellings in the filing are just the capper.

    • commented 2014-10-24 15:03:52 -0400
      Stephan, it was the state, not the federal government that overstepped. No matter how many votes the public put in, the states cannot enact illegal laws. The constitution lays out the qualifications for what is and is not a legal law.

    • commented 2014-10-24 11:32:36 -0400
      Good luck bigots. But your marriage contract only has two people in it.

    • commented 2014-10-23 23:37:26 -0400
      Hopefully the judge will laugh and tell these rubes to get out of his courtroom.

    • commented 2014-10-23 19:33:51 -0400
      Yes we need to stop same sex marriages and the government is now over stepping the people it was put to a vote and it was banned so the people have spoken but the government is over stepping the people and if I remember right the government is for the poeple by the people but it seems to have for got that and needs a fresher on thefacts of why its here but the court is not listening to what the people have said but how they can get more votes for them slefs the court needs to read the constitution and rembrr they are for the people by the people not the other way around we have spoken on it and we the voters gave are answer so end this matter now like the voters said no and thwts how it should be!!!!

    • commented 2014-10-23 18:21:38 -0400
      There’s definitely a precedent for this claim. Surely we all recall when Aristotle stole the world by claiming it was round?

    • commented 2014-10-23 17:48:55 -0400
      Since when has Marriage been a “property”? Marriage is a concept, an idea of unity between two consenting people. It’s nothing more than a promise between said two consenting people to be together. It’s the government, the companies and the religions that have turned being married into this massive issue over who is entitled to what due to who you’re married, who you’re divorced to, and who you’ll be marrying next. And if they qualify that stuff as “property”, then I guess there’s an awful lot of property theft going on today, isn’t there? And if they’re speaking of the definition of marriage…well, good luck trying to find a way to copyright a definition as widely used as that.

    • commented 2014-10-23 17:43:41 -0400
      I am betting summary dismissal with Sanctions

    • commented 2014-10-23 16:47:34 -0400
      LOL, yes Chelsa I agree. However, the different ways to couch the whine are what I find interesting. As well as how quickly they disintegrate under scrutiny.

    • commented 2014-10-23 16:45:34 -0400
      I can sum up the entire argument in one short sentence.

      Ready? Ready?!

      “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! But if we let them have marriage, then we won’t be SPECIAL Anymore, and I WANT TO BE SPECIAL! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!”

    • commented 2014-10-23 15:42:46 -0400
      I’ll give them points for novelty, as this has been lacking in the anti camp. However, as an attorney whose profession is built on the application of the English language, sophomoric errors in basic spelling and grammar do not help your case. This person is really a practicing attorney in Kansas?
      While the approach is novel, I don’t believe there is any legal basis for the claim and the brief presents none.

    • commented 2014-10-23 14:38:55 -0400
      yet denying same sex couple marriage benefits isn’t robbery? Moronic hypocrite.!

    • commented 2014-10-23 14:02:35 -0400
      So by this logic, anyone who names their kid Lindsey is “fundamentally and profoundly changing the meaning of the name, thus taking away my property rights in said name without due process of etc.” And I can sue them. Good to know. And I will definitely be running my own filing through spell-check. You know, bc I I wouldn’t want my lawsuit to look stupid….

    • commented 2014-10-23 12:45:15 -0400
      How is it robbing of personal private property, if someone else is allowed besides these religious adherents, are allowed to marry? Because under the tarpaulin of this failed logic, if interracial marriage is allowed to continue then interracial matriage will also be outlawed. And there is other blowback consequences from this line of logic; by allowing minorites especially blacks, they will be robbing white Americans of their status as preeminent citizens of this nation.

    • commented 2014-10-23 11:49:04 -0400
      WTF!!!…..but you want to rob others of the same ‘property’ …..you can’t claim a ’ Theft’ if, in essence, you are too a thief!
      Go home ’ straight couple’…..you’re drunk! Lol

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: