Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 17, 2014, 10:05:00 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Gay Marriage paving the way for Corporate Marriage?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Gay Marriage paving the way for Corporate Marriage?  (Read 2372 times)
Jacobtm
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3054


View Profile
« on: November 29, 2011, 01:04:30 pm »
Ignore

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

Why do so many people here cheer on war crimes?
Israel and the United States "killing dozens of civilians with explosives", as you phrase it, has, throughout history, almost always been a good thing.
Bacon King
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15518
United States Minor Outlying Islands


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2011, 04:46:35 pm »
Ignore

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


BK without all the crazy drugs just wouldn't be BK.
Bacon King: 1.  You're cute, in a weird Tom Wopat kind of way.
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2011, 12:06:46 pm »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3054


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2011, 01:54:23 pm »
Ignore


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

Why do so many people here cheer on war crimes?
Israel and the United States "killing dozens of civilians with explosives", as you phrase it, has, throughout history, almost always been a good thing.
Zach Vega
zachvega
Full Member
***
Posts: 127
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.83, S: -6.61

P

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2011, 10:32:11 pm »
Ignore

I honestly wouldn't doubt it.
Logged
Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4370
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2011, 02:55:10 pm »
Ignore

I'll support it only if they have kids.... Tongue
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14205


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2011, 10:21:24 pm »
Ignore

This thread is idiotic.
Logged

It is very advisable to examine and dissect the men of science for once, since they for their part are quite accustomed to laying bold hands on everything in the world, even the most venerable things, and taking them to pieces.

-Friedrich Nietzsche
politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3174
Denmark


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2012, 09:31:55 pm »
Ignore

This thread is idiotic.
Yup. But funny
Logged

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Winston Churchill

"While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment."

Barry Goldwater

The way 90% of Atlas threads end up:
milhouse24
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2343
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2012, 10:49:15 pm »
Ignore

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
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2012, 04:18:55 am »
Ignore

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

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2012, 04:13:03 pm »
Ignore

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

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10197
Russian Federation


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2012, 05:13:16 pm »
Ignore

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

  

" But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson WV SBE v Barnette
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8533
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2012, 06:46:13 pm »
Ignore

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

Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in Atlasia.
I could only wish that I looked like Paul Ryan
GRIMES FOR KENTUCKY SENATOR
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30565


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2012, 06:48:33 pm »
Ignore

AT&T's prenup with T-Mobile cost them $3 billion.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14205


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2012, 06:51:35 pm »
Ignore

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

It is very advisable to examine and dissect the men of science for once, since they for their part are quite accustomed to laying bold hands on everything in the world, even the most venerable things, and taking them to pieces.

-Friedrich Nietzsche
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26585
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 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

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
Jacobtm
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3054


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2012, 09:46:57 am »
Ignore

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

Why do so many people here cheer on war crimes?
Israel and the United States "killing dozens of civilians with explosives", as you phrase it, has, throughout history, almost always been a good thing.
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14205


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2012, 11:09:09 am »
Ignore

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

It is very advisable to examine and dissect the men of science for once, since they for their part are quite accustomed to laying bold hands on everything in the world, even the most venerable things, and taking them to pieces.

-Friedrich Nietzsche
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26585
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 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

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines