AUSTIN — Three polygamists and a serial litigant walked into a courtroom.

If two men can now wed, can I marry my computer? the latter asked. The Dallas judge, who was not amused, knew this was "not their 'first rodeo.'" So in an emphatic ruling last month, he told them no.

But the self-described "objectophile" seeking a wedding with his laptop was nevertheless undeterred, promising Thursday he will refile the lawsuit "with more plaintiffs."

Same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, he argued, but it's now legal in all 50 states — so why not allow polygamy, bestiality and even ... matrimony with a machine?

"We will make it impossible for the court to dream up ways to dismiss the action in order to avoid the merits of our constitutional claims," Chris Sevier told The Dallas Morning News in an email. "While the Judges in Texas can run. They cannot hide (sic)."

Sevier filed the lawsuit in November against Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton and Dallas County Clerk John Warren. He was joined by three other plaintiffs, two of whom claim to be an "ex-gay" and "former transgender" man who want to enter into a three-way marriage.

"The governor is overseeing laws that give benefits to homosexuals who are married, but not objectophiles, zoophiles, and polygamists for reasons that are arbitrary," the plaintiffs, who are representing themselves, wrote in their complaint. "The plaintiffs seek to force the government to legally recognize polygamy and man-object marriage, is marriage is a matter of civil rights."

Sevier has filed several several similar lawsuits before in an attempt to overturn same-sex marriage after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized it nationwide in June 2015. In the past several years, he's targeted the Harris County clerk as well as the states of Alabama and Utah. He just filed a case in Louisiana.

He's also sued Apple for providing devices that allow users to access pornography, which Sevier said "is hijacking great sex," and once promised to file a dozen lawsuits in a dozen states until a judge took his side.

Sevier has even worked with Texas lawmakers on a bill that would require retailers to include pornography-blocking capabilities on all electronics. The legislation, authored by Republican Rep. James White of Hillister, was filed last year but failed to pass.

"The plaintiffs are part of the Special Forces of Liberty, which is working on tax legislation in this state," the plaintiffs wrote, mentioning White by name. White said he did work with Sevier — and several others — in crafting the legislation, but was not involved in or aware of his lawsuit.

Sevier said Thursday he plans to get lawmakers in Texas to introduce the Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act, a piece of legislation he's pushed in other states like Wyoming and South Carolina that would define all non-heterosexual unions as "parody marriages."

"Then I'll break the attorney general's arm into supporting that," Sevier said, referring to Paxton, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. "I mean, he's got to."

Fighting Sevier's lawsuit, Abbott and Paxton found themselves in the unusual position of defending Texas' enforcement of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling. They criticized the plaintiffs, particularly Sevier, for being "serial litigants" and said they lacked standing because they don't live in Texas.

"The right to marry one's computer or enter into polygamous marriages is not an interest that is, objectively, deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition such that it qualifies as a protected interest," the state argued. "Because plaintiffs do not have the fundamental right that they assert and do not belong to either a suspect or quasi-suspect class, and because there are myriad rational bases for prohibiting polygamous marriage or marriage to an inanimate object, plaintiffs fail to state an Equal Protection claim upon which relief may be granted."

Last month, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiffs repeatedly failed to follow the court's rules and procedures, he said.

"This is not the first lawsuit brought by plaintiffs, so this is not their 'first rodeo,'" Lindsay wrote in his ruling. Regardless, he added, the court "warned them on three occasions" to follow the court's rules. They failed to comply, so on Feb. 23, he threw out their case.

Lindsay did not rule on the merits of the case. He sided with the state and granted its motion to dismiss, citing what he said were many procedural shortcomings by the plaintiffs.

State officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.