Gay Marriage paving the way for Corporate Marriage?

[Jacobtm]

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.

[Bacon King]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Jacobtm]

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%.

[Zach Vega]

I honestly wouldn't doubt it.

[TJ in Wisco]

I'll support it only if they have kids....

[The Mikado]

This thread is idiotic.

[politicus]

This thread is idiotic.

Yup. But funny

[milhouse24]

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. 

[Vasall des Midas]

This thread is idiotic.

Yup. But funny

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.

[Torie]

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.

[shua]

This thread is idiotic.

Yup. But funny

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.

[Oakvale]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

AT&T's prenup with T-Mobile cost them $3 billion.

[The Mikado]

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?

[True Federalist]

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.

[Jacobtm]

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.

[The Mikado]

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.

[True Federalist]

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."