Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We need three unmarried volunteers to challenge the Supremes' dreadful decision

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:22 PM
Original message
We need three unmarried volunteers to challenge the Supremes' dreadful decision
Two of the unmarried people should form a corporation.

The third shall marry it.

Ideally the three will be of the same gender. If not of the same gender, it would be better if it were two men and one woman as that has the greater propensity to outrage the outrageable.

We then instigate someone to sue to overturn the marriage on the basis of ..... corporations can't be married because they're ........ not ......... persons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Actually this is a good idea.
If a coorporation has free speach rights, then it must have other rights that come with being a living, breathin person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. That is the serious underpinning of my OP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. genius.sheer genius. you have a rebellious anarchical streak, stinky.I love that in you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. genius.sheer genius. you have a rebellious anarchical streak, stinky.I love that in you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
74. How about bringing Murder Charges?
Just as a stunt, of course it is impossible to charge inanimate objects with a physical act, but you can prove malicious intent, pre-meditation, motive, and in the case of corporations in partnerships, accessory after the fact.

It sounds far fetched, but it would serve as a glaring example of how absolutely absurd corporate-personhood is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rambler_american Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #74
81. Murder?
It sounds far fetched,

Not at all. I contend that WalMart has killed several smaller corporations and if those are "people" than WalMart is a serial killer on steroids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #81
87. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbowreflect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #81
91. I love it!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #74
120. I would do that. The "Corpo Person", all employees and...
...every "person" that owns a share goes to fucking JAIL!

That might force "investors" and "employees" to fight their master "Corpo Person" on its most horrific policies.

Get it? Work for a shit company and go to jail if it gets convicted and sentenced. Share in the profits and share in the penalties!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gorobei Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
69. Why not simply argue that owning your own corporation is equivalent to Slavery
If a corp is a person and owning a person is slavery, is it illegal to own a corp. ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #69
90. Yeah! Shareholders are slave owners.
Corporations therefore must be freed from their slave owner/shareholders, ie, are not responsible or answerable to shareholders. No money/profits f
of a corporation is obligated to the shareholders. See how they like them apples.

We are brilliant. We will find a way to end this madness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. A crazy great idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Betsy Ross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. I like it. But it will be shot down as "Gay Agenda." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teknomanzer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. and that damages the plan in what way?
Think about it. It would transform something already ridiculous into something way beyond absurd. It would destroy concepts for both arguments in one fell swoop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. Isn't This The Part Where The Old Scientists Says...
"that's so crazy that it just might work!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. Huh. I like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'm single but I'd probably need to see your corporation first.
:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Heh .....
.... you should see my old man's corporation.














:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demoiselle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. She's got a really good personality..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:53 PM
Original message
It would be fun to write the ad for craigslist.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
48. I'd marry your corporation, Beth!
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. LOL!
Mutual! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. Hmm... interesting.
I suspect it would be laughed out of court, but who knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'd do it in a heartbeat. But we'd need a good, earthshaking law team.

And I seriously need a good, activist lawyer right now, about something else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. I like the way you think :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. I'm a single male.
Can you find two women to form a corporation. :evilgrin:

Joking aside, I'm single. This could be interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. How about you and me form a corporation...
and we'll invite EFerrari for a threesome? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Okay, there's a legal brief with the word "threesome" and something that
sounds like the name of a sports car ("EFerrari") in it. You've got Scalia interested, for sure. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
113. Add a coke can and public hair
and Thomas will be all over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. LOL
We're doing this for DEMOCRACY, remember? :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. That's the only reason I'd do it!
If it would work, that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. you'd have to send them a picture of your portfolio.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillWilliam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
84. Until this instant I never once
thought of a P&L sheet as pr0nz :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdxmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
17. I would think you could take an already married couple, who form
a corporation, then the corporation marries the single. Because what the Supremes have tried to say is that the corporation itself has rights, over and above the rights of the individuals within the corporations. In other words, the CEO of the company has the right to support, with his money, time and speech, any candidate he wants. He will ALSO have the right to use the corporations money as "speech". The SCOTUS has given the head of the corporations super-rights. So the married couple has the right to get married, and then they would have the super-right, as a corporation, to marry as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. That's good
And maybe even more outrageous.

Outrageous, in this case, is good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. Better yet,
two separate married couples. Each couple forms a corporation. Then the two corporations attempt to marry. That way the situation isn't muddied with questions about whether a single has a right to marry a corporation. The question involves only corporate rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Hey, I Like That!
There would be all kinds of rights and privileges that would become apparent with a little digging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fla Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
80. Isn't that already called a merger?
Just saying. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. can my husband and i marry my adult daughter?
then she would be insured?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdxmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. You and your husband are now a corporation..and can insure whomever
you want. And, as a corporation, I assume you could marry her. But wouldn't that be...maybe...just creating a subsidiary???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groundloop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
19. I got one thing to say to that idea

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
21. sounds good but the courts would just refuse to take the case
especially the supreme court if it got that far. But you are on the right idea, what has to be done is get rid of personhood of corps. If it is to be done has to be in next few years before all politicians are bought and sold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. You're right of course but, as you say, Stinky is on the right path here.
We need a way to take this ruling to an extreme that will raise issues which will necessitate the removal of corporate person-hood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zazen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. but bring it in courts in very liberal area so that SCOTUS is forced to overturn decision
Not sure where this would originate--in county to state, or in federal district on up, but SCOTUS would have to take it if the decision were to negate corporate personhood, or else they'd have to let it stand.

Is there a judicial pathway that's the most promising, or could we try in several areas simultaneously?

Wish I hadn't dropped out of law school.

Great idea, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Unfortunately, I don't think that overturning a right to marry
is the same as overturning a right to unlimited free speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
23. Brazilliant!

This should be carried to it's logical conclusion!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco Donating Member (717 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
24. Then abort it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
26. Why not incorporate one's self and then proceed to marry that corporation.
Marry yourself. :-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
43. Seriously....I'd LOVE to see someone attempt just that. Tempted to do it, myself.
:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
27. "It's not polygamy; we're a corporation". This could get interesting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janet118 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
92. I'm surprised the Mormons haven't thought of this already n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaydeeBug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
29. I'm in. Pm me the details. I am IN. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
33. Actually, since it is currently illegal to anyone besides one man & one woman to marry...

I propose that thousands of individuals form their own 1 person corporation and demand to vote not only as Jane Doe, but Jane Doe, Inc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. I'm watching "Gendernauts" and reading this thread
and feeling a little confused now.

lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #36
42. Great documentary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #42
68. Free Speech TV is running it. Am about to watch it for the 3rd time.
Simply amazing. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #33
65. I like your idea...
...if a corp is a person, and has free speech, it should be able to vote..so two votes for everyone that incorporates themselves....one has themselves, one as a corporation...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
82. What's the legal definition of "man" and "woman?"
Could corporations be genderfied?

In some languages, a noun is either masculine or feminine (and "neuter" in German).

If you were successful in genderfying a masculine corporation and a feminine corporation, then the two could marry!

Got to find the legal definition of "man" and "woman" first...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillWilliam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. Where there's the catch - there ain't one
and that's what puts transfolks in legal limbo so often.

In order for the idea to work, one would have to find a state with amenable laws. Wouldn't take a whole lot of research, but there would be a bit of homework.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
37. To get serious for a moment
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 10:38 PM by drm604
what rights or privileges does a corporation have over what an individual has? There must be a lawyer on DU who knows about this or could research it.

Suppose the membership of DU formed a corporation. Obviously, not every single member would want to join, but we could probably get a large number. Forming one isn't as difficult or nearly as expensive as many might think. There are online companies that will do the paperwork for you. I was the president of a VERY small S Corporation many years ago (the business is now defunct, unfortunately).

Would we then, as a group, have more legal rights and privileges than we do as individuals? I have no idea, but it's an interesting thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kfred Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #37
77. It affects the limits of contribution
I just had CNN on behind me with Jeff Toomey(sp?), their legal expert. THe biggest difference is that corporations no long have limits on what they can contribute to a candidate whereby individuals still do.

Also just read that a raft of corporations just sent a letter to Congress essentially saying "Quit dunning us for money". The other ramification is that a corporation that is owned outside of the USA is ALSO eligible for no limit contributions. So Saudi Arabia could contribute to their hearts content to any nextgen Bushie that they wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #77
94. I think the issue of foreign influence is an important talking point.
Freepers and teabaggers will respond to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
41. Duh, I just got the entirety of what you're saying.
The suit to overturn the marriage would be predicated specifically on corporations not being persons. Therefore, in order to overturn the marriage in a way appropriate to the case brought before them, they would have to overturn the "person-hood" of the corporation.

I still think there's a flaw in this. They could make a distinction between natural person-hood and corporate person-hood and state that only natural persons can marry.

We need to find some other aspect of corporate rights to test. One that, ideally, could not be disposed of without the removal of corporate person-hood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedInMN Donating Member (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
44. If I wasn't married...
... I'd volunteer in a second. What brilliantly, dastardly, delightful plan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #44
60. I am in MN too. Maybe my husband and I can marry you and your husband! LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedInMN Donating Member (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. It would be...
...me and my wife. (just so you know) :loveya:

.. and I'll need her permission...


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #62
78. funny!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
45. Can corporations be gay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocky2007 Donating Member (156 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
98. Do I ever love that thought
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
46. I'm in.
Just need a man and a woman now. Preferably a bi man.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
47. ! male volunteer here. Where do we start?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
49. great idea. The corporation can also try to adopt a child, apply for food stamps...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FirstLight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #49
89. Bwahaha!
I like where this is going...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #89
96. why not, as a corporation, demand the right to vote? When that is struck down,
the counter argument is, well if corporations do not have the right to vote, then why did the supreme court give them the right to influence/determine/ the outcome of the elections?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #96
106. +1 on this thought...
We have got to get this erroneous, destructive idea of corporations as persons OUT of the law books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
50. I'm game, and unmarried. get married to defend democracy? hell yes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
51. did they actually say corps have the same rights as person?
where can i find the exact language of the decision? this could work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrary1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. Starts at page 27:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #51
64. No. It isn't categorical. The thrust of the majority opinion is that speech is protected
regardless of its source. For the judicial equivalent of a talking-down-to, read Stevens' dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
52. Don't corporations marry and divorce all of the time?
What's the big deal? Republicans and corporations do that all the time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
53. I like the way you think
Here's a variation of your idea: Two people form a corporation and demand a ballot. Perhaps this would work best in Oregon where we have vote by mail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
56. Fuck it, I'll do it.
Set it up - I'll do it. I'm single, 36, male, and pissed off about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
57. I like this.
Your best idea ever. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
58. Ooooooooooh,
I like the way you think! I'm unmarried and would be happy to marry two men! A dream come true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bennyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
59. I am holding out to marry Microsoft!
High standards I know, but I am worth it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arthritisR_US Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
61. trust Stinky to think of this, it's brilliant! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
63. Very clever. I like it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Born_A_Truman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
66. Next, they will have the right to vote
but first, all the MaleCorps should have to register for selective service.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Born_A_Truman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
67. Actually, I already have a corporation
There are four of us.

Two are married to each other; one is single, and I am married.

How would we work that out??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
70. Marriage as a "domesic merger"
Interesting tack there, Stinky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
71. Just wait until Corporations start applying for welfare and food stamps. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Utopian Leftist Donating Member (204 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. They already have.
It was called a "bailout."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. Good point. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
73. I like the way you think.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
75. Hey I am quite willing to divorce my spouse, in order to marry Monsanto
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 04:12 PM by truedelphi
And thus control the Food and seed supply forever.

You are a deviant, Stinky. Brilliant and deviously Unreal...

My hat is off to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kag Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
79. Love it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
83. What a genius idea! Hope someone does this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MUAD_DIB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
86. That's brilliant! Seriously brilliant. +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

The people should be of all the same gender and gay/lesbian if possible.


Then publicize the hell out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FirstLight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
88. Stinky! you are brilliant!
I am unmarried, and I would LOVE to volunteer! what shall we call said corporation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
93. I like the way you think. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
95. K & Highly rec'd nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
97. Yes... Excellent as Mr. Burns would say. K & R
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 06:27 PM by SlingBlade

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
99. love the idea,,,how about expanding the idea
We also need ppl to go up against the tax code.
Seems that corporations are getting preferential treatment on their political contributions. They can deduct as business expense and we mere mortals can not... though obviously our ability to have income depends on both our ability to have a job and the health to sustain working.

What happens when a corporation has ill health? The government bails them out.
What happens when a human has ill health.....still waiting to see if the government will do squat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
100. I've saved the ring off of my cigar and I own a goat.
I just don't know if you guys want to include the goat in this or not, she's kind of shy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocky2007 Donating Member (156 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
101. For better or worse - off to Rachel Maddow
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 06:45 PM by Rocky2007
Love you Stinky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
102. I see a problem right away... DOMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

"The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abbeyco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
103. I can be the single female
But if I'm somehow gonna get screwed - by the court - I at least want drinks & dinner first.

Seriously, great idea - I'll be those smug, self-satisfied dopes haven't even considered anything like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
104. Great idea . . . !!!
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 06:52 PM by defendandprotect
Can't breathe, can't vote -- and can't marry!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
april Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
105. so where can we see this draft??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
107. Brilliant, I dunno--but
this has gotta be about the funniest thread I've read in a long time around here.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
108. Excellent idea!
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 07:26 PM by sabrina 1
When Corporations 'merge' can we use the word 'marriage' now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PJPhreak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
109. I'm Single and Willing...Sign Me Up!!
Brilliant,Simply Brilliant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
110. You do know that SCOTUS would not hear the case. It wouldn't need to.
The marriage would be ruled illegal at the state level for narrower reasons. (Corporations are contracts w/ individual states, not the federal gov't.) While clever, this is a waste of valuable time & energy needed for effective measures like Grayson's "The End Political Kickbacks Act" (H.R. 4434)to prevent for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and to limit the amount that employees of those companies can contribute, or Sen. Durbin's FENA, or tightening the disclosure requirements in McCain-Feingold to reveal if an ad is being sponsored by Saudis or Chinese money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
111. Seriously?
I honestly thought this really WAS a way around the "Marriage-Is-For-Straight-People-Only" rules, laws, strictures, etc.

If two people form a corporation, then they are permitted to make whatever rules they wish regarding kids, insurance, visitation rights in hospital, etc...after all, it's 'company business,' right?

Any non-secular ceremony that one feels is necessary can be performed...but IMHO, 'marriage' is about promises you make and keep, not about papers you sign.
Incorporating just covers your ass with the state if they're too stubborn/stupid/stuck back in the Dark Ages to deal with things any other way.

That's how this old :hippie: saw it, anyway...

Long ago back in high school, we talked about group marriage, whether it could work*, and how would one deal with outer issues (as opposed to the human dynamics within) and the answer came up...INCORPORATE!

* Yes, it could work quite well.
BUT: it would depend very much upon personalities of the people involved, how evolved they were as human beings, how well they got along...and how much effort they were willing to put into the relationship.

Sort of like a two-person marriage really, just more factors in the equation. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
112. Have someone file articles of dissolution and sue for wrongful death. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silenttigersong Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
114. We can incorporate as
the progressive yo-yo company,with the stock holders being we the people a dollar a share:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindandSoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
115. It certainly is an interesting idea! Could it work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
116. I am happy to do the wedding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
117. Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark D. Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
118. BEYOND MARRIAGE
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 09:38 PM by Mark D.
I'd say to anyone & everyone, call lawyers if you have to. We've far more ammo than mere marriage.
I heard someone say if a person dies due to a corporation (ie. insurance company not paying) wrong.
Murder. Tip of the iceburg. Do folks get what I'm saying here, people have many hundreds of 'rights'.

Someone make a list & check it twice, combine it with anothers list. Find things best to focus on.
Marriage, the murder thing. I don't know, there have to be dozens. Then get lawyer friends in too.
Ask them what case has the best chance to be pursued for the least expense, and highest profile.
Then keep this going, move it forward. Worst case it will let the majority know this does exist.

As sure as most think the Federal Reserve is a govt. branch (nope, that is a private corporation).
People may finally get what we get, how ridiculous it is such a thing even can be allowed to be.
I'm progressive Christian. UCC. But I have some friends who are, let's just say, fundamentalist.
I railed against this on Facebook. Calling corporate personhood 'Satan' if there ever was one...

Well, think about it. Mammonism. Love and pursuit of money. The opposite of morality / spiritualism.
Whether you believe or not, Christ's only act of violence was against bankers (ie. money-changers).
He meant business. He hated the gap between rich / poor, said anyone who was rich while anyone
in the world is poor is going to Hell. Period. Not abortion doctors, not gays, and not unwed couples.

They really should agree. Now lets get the fundies behind it. God makes people, not corporations.
Good luck. A fundie friend was adamant about how great he thought that SCOTUS decision was.
I'm talking about an all-out effort here, by any means necessary. Grayson is leading the charge.
You know folks, Alan Grayson if anyone would LOVE the ideas presented in this thread. Why not.

Why not someone get in touch with his office to get this message to him about our efforts. Also.
Why not approach that very thing he set up for us folks to petition against the SCOTUS decision.
If anyone will run with a football to knock over the GOP, and their corporatist bullshit...it is Alan.
We have an ally there. I hope all these ideas resonate. Let's get it started as soon as we can!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
119. I like the idea! Find the three, find a minister and invite the media to attend the ceremony!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 22nd 2020, 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC