Gay Marriage paving the way for Corporate Marriage?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 09:00:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Gay Marriage paving the way for Corporate Marriage?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Gay Marriage paving the way for Corporate Marriage?  (Read 4848 times)
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 29, 2011, 01:04:30 PM »

Marriage in New York is no longer between a man and a woman but between any 2 persons.

Corporations of course are legal persons.

AT&T recently tried to take over T-Mobile, but was prevented by anti-trust authorities.

In that case, why not simply marry?

Of course, then divorces could be filed, with one corporation being granted half the assets of the other.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,820
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2011, 04:46:35 PM »

To get a marriage license you need to provide documents like birth certificates and photo ID's, which a corporation couldn't have. Also, I don't think any state allows a person to send a representative to get married on their behalf, which would be needed for a corporation to be married.

Corporate personhood is definitely stupid, I agree, but thankfully this amusing idea isn't something that could actually happen.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2011, 12:06:46 PM »

Even if corporations could get married, corporate marriage wouldn't achieve the same ends as a merger (and would be effectively meaningless). Married individuals are treated specially by the individual income tax, but the corporate income tax does not treat married corporations specially (for example, exempting from taxation transfers between married individuals but not between married corporations, or providing a separate set of tax brackets for the combined incomes of married individuals but not for married corporations). Additionally, other federal marriage benefits, like employee benefits for spouses and social security payouts, are not relevant to corporations, which cannot be employees and cannot receive social security.

I can't see any benefit that AT&T and T-Mobile would get from marriage.
Logged
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2011, 01:54:23 PM »


I can't see any benefit that AT&T and T-Mobile would get from marriage.

It's all in the divorce and taking half the assets.

If you can't merge, just get married, get divorced, and get the juiciest 50%.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2011, 02:55:10 PM »

I'll support it only if they have kids.... Tongue
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2011, 10:21:24 PM »

This thread is idiotic.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2012, 09:31:55 PM »

Yup. But funny
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2012, 10:49:15 PM »

I think there will be more "Platonic marriages" of convenience for people who are solely interested in getting free access to someone else's health insurance (through marriage) and other financial help. 

I see a lot of older single women "marrying" their female friends just for the Health insurance, especially if they are single mothers who don't have anyone to help them. 

It might seem fraudulent to have platonic friends/roommates marrying, but many straight couples get married for dubious reasons not having to do with intercourse. 

In the future, There will likely be "married" people who have never sexually consummated their marriages. 
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2012, 04:18:55 AM »

Sentiment echoed!

Also, the premise ("Marriage in New York is now between any 2 persons") is simply incorrect. The law actually states "Parties to a marriage. 1. A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of  the same or different sex." Corporations are still as far as ever from Marriage Equality. So are cats, sheep, and elementary school students. This is an injustice and must be redressed.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2012, 04:13:03 PM »

Nice try. LOL. Let me help you with some of this. "Person" is a defined term, and sometimes it means a living breathing human being, and sometimes, its definition is a legal term of art referring to various economic or political actors, including entities. But hey, if you want to call a corporate merger a marriage, fine by me. After all, they will get to file a joint tax return, and have survivor benefits, and all that good stuff married folks enjoy.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,658
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2012, 05:13:16 PM »

Sentiment echoed!

Also, the premise ("Marriage in New York is now between any 2 persons") is simply incorrect. The law actually states "Parties to a marriage. 1. A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of  the same or different sex." Corporations are still as far as ever from Marriage Equality. So are cats, sheep, and elementary school students. This is an injustice and must be redressed.

I for one support cat-sheep marriage.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2012, 06:46:13 PM »

The question is whether gay corporations (Pepsi, Apple, etc) will be able to marry, or if that will only be in certain states.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2012, 06:48:33 PM »

AT&T's prenup with T-Mobile cost them $3 billion.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2012, 06:51:35 PM »

The question is whether gay corporations (Pepsi, Apple, etc) will be able to marry, or if that will only be in certain states.

How about lesbian corporations like Home Depot?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2012, 07:45:52 PM »

This topic, while never all that serious to begin with, has jumped the shark and is being locked to keep me from hitting the delete button even more than I already have.
Logged
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2012, 09:46:57 AM »

This topic is serious, and deals with the important issue of corporate personhood. If corporations are people, they can marry. If not, they can't marry, and probably can't be protected by 1st ammendment rights either.

The "ridiculous" nature of the thread was just reflecting on the ridiculous nature of considering corporations people.

It's crazy that people think it's sensible to give corporations the protections of humans and then not consider the absurd logical consequences of this.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2012, 11:09:09 AM »

Does Jacob™ ever post anything that's not absurd demagoguery?  Corporate personhood is a centuries-old notion that has its roots back in the first joint stock companies in the 18th century, and he always seems to treat it like it's some new innovation of the modern right.  It's the natural consequence of limited liability: rather than being able to sue or hold legally liable every "owner" (i. e. stockholder) of a company for its actions, the company itself becomes a separate legal entity responsible for its own actions.  It's that simple, and it makes sense.  If corporations weren't "people," it'd be a huge danger to invest in anything because you'd be legally liable for that corporation's actions.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2012, 01:48:59 PM »

Still, it would helpful if there was some other term for the concepts involved than to call corporations "people".  I'm reminded of the mock sponsorship message that NPR's All Things Considered had one April Fools' Day for the Soylent Green company.  "Soylent Green is people."
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 14 queries.