Asshole Couple of the Day

Saw this story on Joe.My.God:

Some weird couple from Kansas has filed a petition to have themselves inserted into the same-sex marriage case currently going on in their state. No, not a weird gay couple, a weird breeder couple. Why would they be involved? Well, let's just let their petition speak for itself.




https://www.scribd.com/doc/244022349/2-14-cv-02518-13


Okay, that's not going to be legible. The couple, Phillip and Sandra Unruh, claim that if two dudes are allowed to marry each other, the state will have violated their 14th Amendment rights, specifically the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses. Now, I would think that the equal protection clause would be one of the major reasons that gay marriage must be legalized, but I'm no attorney or legal scholar. I'm just a regular Joe. So let's see what their lawyers' legal argument are.

Well, it starts out with a bang, when they declare that marriage in Kansas has always been a one man-one woman affair, and gives two citations to back this up. And, I kid you not, those two are:

See Bible, Genesis 2:24 and United States v. Windsor

I don't know what law school teaches you to use the Bible as legal precedent, but I think they should get their tuition refunded.

Actually, I could make a pretty good guess which law school.

Then they make the incredibly legally sound argument that two same-sex people can't fuck a child into existence, so nuh-unh, that marriage doesn't count!

Then they claim that the Unruhs have "invested" in a  marriage contract, and if the plaintiffs succeed in legalizing same-sex marriage, their contract will, um. . . I don't know. It somehow loses its value if the word "marriage" is re-defined in a non-bigoted way? I think?
Apparently, this would deprive the Unruh's of their "property" which is, I guess their marriage? without due process of law? because if two dudes get married, the Unruh's marriage will be null and void?
I'm not sure how something as intangible as a marriage agreement could be considered "property" or how one could be deprived of such "property," but. again, I'm not a lawyer.
 Here's how it reads in legal terms:

“If the Plaintiffs are successful in their causes of action 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 extension of marriage to same-sex relationships inflicts profound harm on the Unruhs. For the courts to say that from this day forward marriage in Kansas must be extended to a same-sex couple is and for ever will be deeply disturbing to the Unruhs. . ."

Which I guess is based on the legal principle that no one should ever have to hear or see anything that they find "disturbing." Just as I have a Constitutional right to never see a Tweet from a One Direction fan, or  have to acknowledge the existence of the Los Angeles Dodgers.
Believe me, both those things are far more disturbing than this: