If Corporations are people...

[Typhoid]

...would you be able to marry a corporation?

I was thinking this the other day. Not for serious reasons, but more for "What if". and "That'd be a good way to prove a point, despite most likely not being possible".

Because if corporations are people, (we'd have to assume genderless), that means "gay marriage" doesn't apply, so any man or woman could marry any corporation. And if gender does (somehow) apply to a corporation, just get yourself a patsy of the opposite gender.

Then you - as the person who marries into the corporation can probably loophole into all the medical benefits and perks that corporation gives. That corporation could then count you as it's dependent, and effectively you'd be set for life.

And if you're so inclined (or sleazy enough), you could probably find some loopholes (if all other loopholes match up) and divorce that corporation and then take half of it's shit.




Because I mean seriously, there have to be some massive loopholes to do with corporations being people that nobody has been ballsy enough (or sleazy enough) to attempt yet.

[Fox 6]

Think of the alimony payments you'd get!

[Seth]

shotgun wedding?

[Professor S]

While i know you are joking, a corporation is treated like a person under the tax code. Legally, they are an organization, not a person. To go along with your line of thought, though, those that work for and invest in a corporation are people and share all of the same laws. In that sense, corporations are indeed people, and if a corporation acts poorly, the effort should be to attack those who made the decisions/broke the laws and not the institution itself.

[Neo]

In similar news, I'd like to announce my engagement to Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages. We're very happy and can't wait to start our new life together.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Originally Posted by Professor S

While i know you are joking, a corporation is treated like a person under the tax code. Legally, they are an organization, not a person. To go along with your line of thought, though, those that work for and invest in a corporation are people and share all of the same laws. In that sense, corporations are indeed people, and if a corporation acts poorly, the effort should be to attack those who made the decisions/broke the laws and not the institution itself.

Hasn't this definition been stretched a little bit though? Considering that corporations under "freedom of speech" construed as freedom to give campaign donations has allowed corporations' donations to be indistinguishable from those given by persons?

note***- i'm asking the above question based on an article I read about a year ago, so sorry if thats not quite how it works.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

Hasn't this definition been stretched a little bit though? Considering that corporations under "freedom of speech" construed as freedom to give campaign donations has allowed corporations' donations to be indistinguishable from those given by persons?

note***- i'm asking the above question based on an article I read about a year ago, so sorry if thats not quite how it works.

Yes, but all organizations are treated this way under the Citizen's United decision, not just corporations. Unions are given freedom of speech as well. IMO, the media tends to concentrate on Corporations because they believe that corporations are evil and unions are good, but in the end they are both simply collections of people who share common interests (mainly self-interests).

Let's put it this way, for every Time Warner Cable lobbying the government for SOPA and PIPA and funding SuperPACs to get friendly people elected, there is a Google who is spending millions to fight it the same way. But you only hear about the unfairness of Time Warner Cable, as if no moneyed interests are in opposition.

Now I'm not against Citizen's United being reversed, but it would have to be reversed for all organizations and mandate that all donations be unlimited, transparent, and from individuals only. Actually, I'd greatly prefer that model. The problem is those that are against Citizen's United want to keep "person-hood" for organizations they like and remove it from those they don't. This does not pass the Constitutional sniff test of equal protection under the law.