By Earnest S. Hitter
Special to YNOT

OMAHA, Neb. – While criminal cases usually supply the legal profession’s most dramatic moments and most significant precedents — from the OJ Simpson trial’s “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit” to the famous “he who smelt it dealt it” precedent established in the landmark case Wisconsin v. Cheesecutter — civil courts have never been short on intrigue, either.

From the determined effort of administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson to obtain just and fair compensation from the not-so-fat-cats of “Small Laundry” over the loss of a particularly cherished pair of his judicial trousers to Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers seeking a permanent injunction against malicious acts of God, many of the most important freedoms (not to mention priciest pantaloons) have been protected not by the legislation of elected lawmakers, but through well-considered lawsuits initiated by courageous, if slightly unhinged, everyday American citizens.

By now, you probably have read other coverage of a recent example of American litigious heroism bearing the style Driskell v. Homosexuals, a civil suit brought by Sylvia Ann Driskell of Auburn, Neb. Filing on behalf of “God and His Son, Jesus Christ,” Driskell asks “to be heard in the matter of homosexuality: Is Homosexuality a sin, or not a sin.”

“The Homosexuals say that [it’s] not a sin to be homosexual,” Driskell scrawled in her complaint, “[And] they have the right to marry, to be parents, and God doesn’t care that [they’re] homosexuals, because He loves them.”

While it’s not entirely clear from the text of the complaint precisely what the plaintiff — according to Driskell, God — would like the court to do about homosexuals and/or the ongoing existence of homosexuality (ironically, the complaint lacks a “prayer for relief”), presumably He seeks, through His counsel and earthly “Ambassador” Sylvia Driskell, declaratory judgment as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

What the complaint does do, unquestionably, is present voluminous evidence of God’s own opinion concerning the sinfulness of homosexuality.

For example, citing Leviticus 18:22, Driskell notes her client “tells his children… ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: It is abomination.’

“Homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality,” Driskell asserts in the ninth quasi-paragraph of the complaint. “Why else would they have been hiding in a closet[?]”

The most salient question, however, just might be whether it’s really appropriate for the court to accept as evidence unilateral ex parte statements made by a party to the case — statements made centuries ago, no less.

Absent some imaginative and persuasive argumentation on the part of Ms. Driskell, the entirety of Leviticus — as well as other Biblical canon purportedly dictated by God to various, now-unavailable witnesses who probably should not have been eating so much moldy bread — could be rejected by the court as irrelevant, unripe hearsay.

Even if the court does allow evidence from Leviticus, expect defense counsel to conduct a lengthy and pointed deposition of the plaintiffs, and of God in particular, with the goal of undermining statements previously made on the record.

Among other things, the defense may ask the Almighty if the court is to take so seriously the provisions of Leviticus pertaining to homosexuality, are we to assume the fires of Hell also are filled to the brimstone with shellfish eaters and people who spent their lives working on Sundays? If not, why not? Did the shellfish-eaters get a pass once God discovered how truly tasty are certain Baja-style variants of the shrimp taco? If so, why was there no Heavenly memorandum distributed to His chosen children (or to the courts, for that matter) of the Lord’s change of heart and law?

From there, it becomes a question of whether the court will entertain God’s usual catchall defense: “I work in mysterious ways.”

This reasoning might have worked on countless generations of the faithful, but in my experience federal judges sometimes are a bit more skeptical than the average workaday rube. At the very least, they will want God to produce during the discovery phase any records He keeps in the normal course of His business — which could include damaging evidence concerning allegations God used to go around asking people to sacrifice their children to Him, only to later claim he was “just fuckin’ with Abraham” or “testing the faith” of his agents and assigns.

Also potentially problematic for the plaintiff are recent public statements made by another of His earthly ambassadors, identified in unrelated court documents as “Pope Frankie” and “Money Marioweather,” but whose real name and official title is Il Grande Formaggio Francesco Jorge Mario Batali Bergoglio Parcheesi Connor-McCloud.

As you’ve probably heard, Pope Frankie has broken somewhat with Catholic tradition by famously saying during a 2013 speech, “It’s not the 15[SUP]th[/SUP] freakin’ Century anymore. Who really cares these days if a guy is a faggot — other than, I guess, Nigerians and those Budweiser-swilling rednecks down there in the Bible Belt?

“Just because a man is a bit fruity, a little limp-wristed, this doesn’t mean he can’t still be a pretty good dude,” Pope Frankie added. “And hey: At least you know he’s safe to have around your daughters, right? Shit, I only wish I could say the same about our priests and your sons.”

While the plaintiff certainly doesn’t have to adopt Pope Frankie’s position and could argue His Holiness simply lost his way (and possibly God’s email address, as well), the iconoclastic pontiff’s swelling popularity might make throwing him beneath the jewel-studded chariot a bad PR move.

Ultimately, whatever judge is assigned to the case may just take the easy way out and find the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the question of homosexual sinfulness, or the cop-out of noting the plaintiff has failed to make a claim for which the court can provide relief.

Hopefully, though, the court will not shirk its responsibility. Hopefully, the judge will have the guts, the integrity, the temerity and the excess of spare time on his hands to weigh in on this important question — ideally on an expedited basis, so the nation can have some much-needed clarity on this crucial question of law before the next edition of Folsom Street Fair.

Earnest S. Hitter possesses a briefcase and a snappy purple bow tie. He carries several business cards indicating he is an attorney of some kind with an office (or at the very least, a post office box) in an upscale Los Angeles-area neighborhood.