Will Init 103 disallow corporations to own patents and copyrights (originally intended by the Constitution to reward individuals) ?
At least the spouse, as a corporation, can outsource any children to overseas sweatshops.
The King County Records and Licensing Division has reviewed today’s events and determined that the clerk accepted the marriage application in error. After checking with the Washington State Department of Health, and pursuant to RCW 26.04.130, we have voided the license and will refund the $64 application fee.
Wouldn't the corporation have a legal guardian who can authorize the marriage? I'm really not familiar with the particulars of the law here.
Anyone have a corporation that is over 18 years old that wants to give this another go?
What if (like Bain Capital) the corporation you marry is fucking a bunch of other corporations? Do you divorce or do a reverse merger?
This is different from that lady who married the warehouse on 10th I think. Why aren't any guys marrying objects for YouTube these days? And good lord (so to speak), Rich Lang's "sermon" goes onandonandonandonandon. Can you imagine being one of the half dozen people who stood there and listened to it all?

Corporations do need limited 4th through 6th amendment rights (copyright and trademark would be a partial reason why they need these rights), but in the vein of the consummating the marriage tract, do corporations need the protection of the 21st amendment?

If that's too goofy for you, what about the 8th? 2nd? If you can't pull a trigger, why do you need a gun (there are many ways a person sans fingers could pull a trigger, but none in which a stack of papers could)?

I have no idea what this initiative has or doesn't have in it, but I'm glad it's out there. I hope more, and more reasonable ones come out of it, because we have already achieved AI, though the AI we've achieved has the intelligence of the rodents from which they've harvested neurons.

When they get up to dolphin, how is that thing not a person if a corporation is?

Get ready for your new robot overloards, courtesy of the 1886 Santa Clara Railroad decision.
Only a human being can apply for and receive a patent. Since a patent is just another piece of property, it can be sold, or given away, to any other person or organization that itself can own property. I don't like some of the new powers and rights that corporations have, but the right of a corporation to own property seems pretty inoffensive to the country's democratic ideals, relatively speaking.
On the downside, Cienna, Boeing's 96 years old.
#7 actually gus, the sermon was pretty frikin' hilarious, I was shocked at some of the words that came out of the padre's mouth. The park rangers were stressed out at first that there was going to be a protest, until they found out it was a wedding, in fact we had a (bike)motorcade escort all the way to city hall, I just wish you were there.
What is the age of consent for fucking a corporation? I've been fucked vise-versa since I was a wee bairn
Yeah, also, if you're going to marry a corporation like it's a person, don't to have to at least identify it?
*don't "you" have to
The name of the corporation of the filing with the Secretary of State of WA is: Corporate Person
@11, I read it, and all i can guess is that you're a good example of the perfect audience for it..
Oh gus, marriage equality is for everyone now, why crush a young women's dream? Were you left at the alter once? Separated after a bitter divorce? If you came you might have caught the garter belt......
Nice way to misquote; bad reporting little girl. KingCty had to dig for a technicality to deny corporations personhood rights via age limitations, and instead you make the story about comments about alcohol that I never made (I had consumed exactly zero alcohol prior to our interview). You are a sloppy reporter, and I suspect that when Corporate Person either turns 18, has its constitutional rights amended, or the people finally revolt, you will still be writing for the Slog. Have fun trying to make me sound like a drunk; I've got the legal precedent on my side.
Those Initiative authors are gonna so upset when they learn that protection of corporate speech under Citizens United was not base on corporate personhood.

And then wait until they try to sue a corporation, or enforce a contract with one. Oh, I'm sorry, the law says you can only sue persons!
Hmmm, "batshit" isn't really a term I hear used in great reporting...there is nothing batshit about wanting the people of Seattle to have a real Bill of Rights, one that includes some control over how the city is developed AND helps end the stream of corporate dollars that over-influence what happens in this town.

Misquoting a direct source is also a naughty no-no! As a witness and full participant, I can tell you that the bride was gushing with excitement over having set a precedent, and actually getting the Marriage License processed! (she was not tossing back drinks)

This is something that has not been done before...but we should be seeing more of it, just to prove the point! Corporations are NOT people and should NOT have the same rights. It's time to get the dirty, dark money out of politics. Our elections shouldn't be bought and paid for. Our votes should actually count. THIS is what democracy looks like right now...the United States of Boeing/Apple/IBM/Walmart/AT&T/Microsoft...etc. etc. etc. Time to kick the corporations to the curb for making a dollar bill the most common thing seen in Congress!

And to gloomygus...dude, if it's not your cup o' tea, fine. But ragging on a minister? That ceremony by Pastor Lang was freakin' hilarious and at the same time *very* poignant. Try reading (or watching) it again. And again. And again. Maybe the absurdity of Citizens United & corporate personhood will sink in deeper than your obvious inability to maintain the attention span of a free-thinking citizen.
@20, ragging on ministers is one of the great pleasures of life. The best to poke fun of are the fundies, of course, but Lang's always been a paragon of a certain Seattle type of ultra-moist-with-compassion preacher. I like him just fine, but he is a definite giggle as well. I'm glad your po-faced undergrad philosophy stirs you so, but it's a waste of all that idealistic energy trying to solemnize us gigglers our of giggling.
There's a 3 day cooling off period in WA, if it was issued today and the ceremony was today the marriage is not valid. The ceremony needs to take place 3 days after the license is issued. (Even if they had issued a valid license.) :)
Whoa whoa, the state cannot void a marriage under RCW 26.04.130. It's only voidable by "the party laboring under the disability [i.e. the person incapable of consenting for want of legal age, i.e. Corporate Person], or upon whom the force or fraud is imposed."

Time for Angela to file suit against the state.
Has anyone identified the gender of this corporation? Nice workaround for same-sex marriage if you incorporate your partner. You can have a lot more write-offs come tax time!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.