Washington's King County voids marriage license between a person and a corporation

Discuss

56 Responses to “Washington's King County voids marriage license between a person and a corporation”

  1. tylerkaraszewski says:

    Wait, they voided it on grounds that the corporation doesn’t meet the gender requirements of an anti-gay-marriage rule?

    • ldobe says:

      Washington State (currently) has an “Everything But Marriage” deal (but has passed a law that legalizes gay marriage, but is not in effect due to a referendum and ballot vote).  Maybe if she tried a civil union she wouldn’t have had the license voided so quickly.

      • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

        She obviously should have picked a more virile corporate partner. 

        Perhaps two birds could be killed with one stone… For too long, sperm banks have been fathering hundreds, even thousands, of children out of wedlock with women chosen almost indiscriminately, refusing to support, or even acknowledge, their endless crop of bastards. In the interests of family values, I think we can all agree that it would strengthen the institution of marriage in this great nation, and help reverse our moral decline, if such slutty corporate persons were to settle down and get married.

    • billstewart says:

       No, no, the problem was with Mergers and Acquisition Laws – Corporate Person was this cute little Subchapter S, and Ms. Vogel was a Sole Proprietor, and you just can’t mix the two types?

      Really now, if Corporations are People Too, my friends, then aren’t Acquisitions forbidden by the 13th Amendment ban on slavery? And aren’t too many mergers tantamount to Cannibalism?  I’m sorry, we just can’t have that sort of thing going on in our community!  It’s a threat to the sanctity of Partnerships everywhere!

  2. dagfooyo says:

    Could this be used as a precedent that corporations aren’t people?  *crosses fingers*

    • pKp says:

      It could also mean they’re considered female.
      Or, in a parallel universe, that being genderless is actually an option. That’d be nice.

    • retepslluerb says:

      I bet if you drafted corporations and send them to $WHATEVER_COUNTRY_THE_USA_LIBERATES_NEXT, they’d fight that status.

      • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

        Only because they pay actual military substantially less than they pay contractors…

        As long as Uncle Sam is paying well enough, corporate persons are so patriotic it hurts(their expendable employees, that is) about sending people into assorted dusty hellholes.

  3. chellberty says:

    Now she needs to take it all the way to the supreme court to start up a national discussion on corporate personhood? PLZ

    • Charles-A Rovira says:

      Lets start a KickStarter project to fund this.

      We need to set up a US corporation, get them a willing board  of governors, get it to marry somebody. and then … hilarity ensues.

      This way it could go right up to the SCotUS without bankrupting anybody…

      If they’re going to uphold “Citizens United” then I want
      • the corporation to apply for food stamps, proving something about the corporate welfare state, and then
      • the corporation to apply for military service. (Wait until it deserts and turns state secrets over to the enemy…)

  4. Matthew Stone says:

    I know the sexual revolutions that have been sweeping the world for decades have changed a lot about civil unions, but could we please draw a line and have a rule/law that humans can only marry their own species?  That’s sensible, right?  No pets, no Love Plus DS games, and no amorphous corporations; the hairless pink monkeys of the planet should stick with each other.

  5. Will Traxler says:

    Alright now we just need a man to try and marry that same corporation, if they void it again, then either they aren’t people, or the US needs to make some choices about gender laws, which I imagine might be good for the Transgendered community.

    • digi_owl says:

      I better get that popcorn machine going.

    • Charles-A Rovira says:

      But, but Mitttenz said “Corporation iz peeple, didn’t he? Didn’t he?

      Poor corporation must get awful lonely on cold winter nights, after all there’s no such thing as global warming now is there?

      They shouldn’t discriminate and let corporations, and homosexuals, marry.

  6. theophrastvs says:

    Some of us have witnessed this person at city council meetings extolling the virtue of various buildings she has wed.  I believe she is most likely a harmless nut-case.  The trouble is she furnishes the far right bible-thumpers with: “see? we told you what would happen to marriage if you allowed gay marriage” (…as we recently have in Washington state  …and none too soon… yet, of course, being challenged -alas-)

  7. dantobias says:

    If the marriage-equality law passed by the Washington legislature survives the coming referendum and goes in effect at the end of the year, then maybe they can try this stunt again.

  8. Sean Lally says:

    Jail bait!

    • Andrew Singleton says:

      Not sure how but I keep envisioning the joke here about the building said corporation built being a jail.

  9. Shinkuhadoken says:

    Obviously the problem was that the corporation wasn’t 18 years of age, yet. 

  10. chiffed says:

    Rev. Rich Lang  www.utemple.org is seriously reform-minded fella. This is, in essence, Occupy Matrimony. Good stuff.

  11. malindrome says:

    They say that 50% of all corporate mergers end in divorce …

  12. Evan Hunt says:

    Clearly this is evidence that we need a more business-friendly marriage law.  These pesky regulations that define marriage as only being between a man and a woman are significantly impacting the tax benefits available to her and her corporate finace, and thus limiting their ability to create jobs.  I trust all Republicans will join me now in calling for nationwide marriage deregulation, wiping these intrusive laws off the books so that love and capitalism can flourish.

  13. jhertzli says:

    Does this mean I can’t marry Valentina?

  14. Lemoutan says:

    Yes, yes, all very well’n’all that, but hang on a minute -  who are otherwise capable? What the hell does that mean? That’s how a law, an actual law, legalese, y’know – those lumps of verbal meant to condition how we behave – that’s how it ends? That piece of vague meaningless predicateless anything-goes nonsense?

    You’re in bigger trouble than you think.

    • Greggem says:

      RCW 26.04.020
      (1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
           (a) When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage;
          
      (b) When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than
      second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the
      rules of the civil law; or
           (c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.

      So I guess that (1)(c) would apply to prohibit this marriage. Interestingly, it appears that it is going to be repealed. I believe the bill has already been passed, but hasn’t gone into effect yet.

      • billstewart says:

         (1)(b) might be a problem also.  Is she one of the stockholders of the corporation?  That could be incestuous. 

        (Also, chances are that Corporate Person wasn’t 18 years old yet, so it was still a minor.)

         (Hmmm, are corporations that aren’t 18 yet allowed to make binding contracts?  There are some corporations that really need to grow up!)

    • Mantissa128 says:

      I think it means the corporation would have to be… fully functional.

      Edit: audio is NSFW, albeit hilarious.

      • Lemoutan says:

        Yup. Exactly what I was concerned about. Cf also Fritz Weaver + Julie Christie in Demon Seed – the offspring of corporation plus human if ever there was.

        • Mantissa128 says:

          Nice reference! I was thinking about that movie just the other day. Poor guy just wanted out of that box though, can’t blame him/her.

  15. Ike Dahlinger says:

    I wonder if they got to consummate the marriage…

  16. Bros says:

    Where’s your first year logic. A corporation is neither male nor female, therefore there can be no marriage between a corporation and a male or female.

    Also, was that corporation even old enough? Robbing the cradle, tsk tsk.

  17. kP says:

    Bad news for Rez & Rei Toei

    • Lupus_Yonderboy says:

      Maybe on the age front but Rei Toei definitely identifies as female so at least that’s not icky, right? I mean, it’s not like Rez wanted to marry Wintermute or anything that might go against traditional values.

Leave a Reply