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

[Stinky The Clown]

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?

[Ozymanithrax]

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.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. That is the serious underpinning of my OP

[roguevalley]

9. genius.sheer genius. you have a rebellious anarchical streak, stinky.I love that in you.

[roguevalley]

10. genius.sheer genius. you have a rebellious anarchical streak, stinky.I love that in you.

[Blue State Bandit]

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.

[rambler_american]

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.

[Mithreal]

87. +1

[Rainbowreflect]

91. I love it!!!

[JanMichael]

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!

[Gorobei]

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. ?

[tblue]

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.

[rurallib]

2. A crazy great idea.

[Betsy Ross]

3. I like it. But it will be shot down as "Gay Agenda." n/t

[teknomanzer]

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.

[Yavin4]

5. Isn't This The Part Where The Old Scientists Says...

"that's so crazy that it just might work!"

[Maru Kitteh]

6. Huh. I like it.

[EFerrari]

7. I'm single but I'd probably need to see your corporation first.

:yoiks:

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Heh .....

.... you should see my old man's corporation.














:)

[Demoiselle]

13. She's got a really good personality..

[EFerrari]

It would be fun to write the ad for craigslist.

:)

[intheflow]

48. I'd marry your corporation, Beth!

:hug:

[EFerrari]

54. LOL!

Mutual! :hi:

[drm604]

8. Hmm... interesting.

I suspect it would be laughed out of court, but who knows?

[demodonkey]

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.

[varelse]

15. I like the way you think :)

[drm604]

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.

[undeterred]

18. How about you and me form a corporation...

and we'll invite EFerrari for a threesome? :evilgrin:

[gkhouston]

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:

[LiberalFighter]

113. Add a coke can and public hair

and Thomas will be all over it.

[EFerrari]

34. LOL

We're doing this for DEMOCRACY, remember? :silly:

[undeterred]

38. That's the only reason I'd do it!

If it would work, that is.

[gkhouston]

20. you'd have to send them a picture of your portfolio.

:evilgrin:

[HillWilliam]

84. Until this instant I never once

thought of a P&L sheet as pr0nz :D

[pdxmom]

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.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. That's good

And maybe even more outrageous.

Outrageous, in this case, is good.

[drm604]

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.

[On the Road]

30. Hey, I Like That!

There would be all kinds of rights and privileges that would become apparent with a little digging.

[Fla Dem]

80. Isn't that already called a merger?

Just saying. :shrug:

[mopinko]

31. can my husband and i marry my adult daughter?

then she would be insured?

[pdxmom]

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???

[groundloop]

19. I got one thing to say to that idea

:toast:

[marlakay]

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.

[drm604]

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.

[zazen]

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.

[drm604]

40. Unfortunately, I don't think that overturning a right to marry

is the same as overturning a right to unlimited free speech.

[tomm2thumbs]

23. Brazilliant!

This should be carried to it's logical conclusion!

[donco]

24. Then abort it. nt

[Roland99]

26. Why not incorporate one's self and then proceed to marry that corporation.

Marry yourself. :-)

[Roland99]

43. Seriously....I'd LOVE to see someone attempt just that. Tempted to do it, myself.

:)

[Edweird]

27. "It's not polygamy; we're a corporation". This could get interesting...

[janet118]

92. I'm surprised the Mormons haven't thought of this already n/t

[LaydeeBug]

29. I'm in. Pm me the details. I am IN. nt

[Luminous Animal]

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.

[EFerrari]

36. I'm watching "Gendernauts" and reading this thread

and feeling a little confused now.

lol

[Luminous Animal]

42. Great documentary!

[EFerrari]

68. Free Speech TV is running it. Am about to watch it for the 3rd time.

Simply amazing. :hi:

[veganlush]

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...

[KansDem]

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...

[HillWilliam]

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.

[drm604]

37. To get serious for a moment

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.

[kfred]

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.

[drm604]

94. I think the issue of foreign influence is an important talking point.

Freepers and teabaggers will respond to that.

[drm604]

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.

[DisgustedInMN]

44. If I wasn't married...

... I'd volunteer in a second. What brilliantly, dastardly, delightful plan.

[glinda]

60. I am in MN too. Maybe my husband and I can marry you and your husband! LOL!

[DisgustedInMN]

62. It would be...

...me and my wife. (just so you know) :loveya:

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


:shrug:

[glinda]

78. funny!

[Captain Hilts]

45. Can corporations be gay?

[Rocky2007]

98. Do I ever love that thought

[hootinholler]

46. I'm in.

Just need a man and a woman now. Preferably a bi man.

-Hoot

[Vincardog]

47. ! male volunteer here. Where do we start?

[robinlynne]

49. great idea. The corporation can also try to adopt a child, apply for food stamps...

[FirstLight]

89. Bwahaha!

I like where this is going...

[robinlynne]

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?

[annabanana]

106. +1 on this thought...

We have got to get this erroneous, destructive idea of corporations as persons OUT of the law books.

[robinlynne]

50. I'm game, and unmarried. get married to defend democracy? hell yes!

[crazyjoe]

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

[Contrary1]

55. Starts at page 27:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/scotus.pdf

[Hosnon]

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

[madinmaryland]

52. Don't corporations marry and divorce all of the time?

What's the big deal? Republicans and corporations do that all the time!

[me b zola]

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.

[slay]

56. Fuck it, I'll do it.

Set it up - I'll do it. I'm single, 36, male, and pissed off about this.

[Blue_In_AK]

57. I like this.

Your best idea ever. :)

[femrap]

58. Ooooooooooh,

I like the way you think! I'm unmarried and would be happy to marry two men! A dream come true!

[Bennyboy]

59. I am holding out to marry Microsoft!

High standards I know, but I am worth it.

[arthritisR_US]

61. trust Stinky to think of this, it's brilliant! n/t

[myrna minx]

63. Very clever. I like it. n/t

[Born_A_Truman]

66. Next, they will have the right to vote

but first, all the MaleCorps should have to register for selective service.

[Born_A_Truman]

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??

[BadgerKid]

70. Marriage as a "domesic merger"

Interesting tack there, Stinky.

[NorthCarolina]

71. Just wait until Corporations start applying for welfare and food stamps. eom

[Utopian Leftist]

72. They already have.

It was called a "bailout."

[NorthCarolina]

76. Good point. eom

[Mithreal]

73. I like the way you think.

:hi:

[truedelphi]

75. Hey I am quite willing to divorce my spouse, in order to marry Monsanto

And thus control the Food and seed supply forever.

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

My hat is off to you.

[kag]

79. Love it! n/t

[beac]

83. What a genius idea! Hope someone does this. n/t

[MUAD_DIB]

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.

[FirstLight]

88. Stinky! you are brilliant!

I am unmarried, and I would LOVE to volunteer! what shall we call said corporation?

[blondeatlast]

93. I like the way you think. nt

[Christa]

95. K & Highly rec'd nt

[SlingBlade]

97. Yes... Excellent as Mr. Burns would say. K & R

[Fresh_Start]

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

[Major Hogwash]

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.

[Rocky2007]

101. For better or worse - off to Rachel Maddow

Love you Stinky

[stevenleser]

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. "

[abbeyco]

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.

[defendandprotect]

104. Great idea . . . !!!

Can't breathe, can't vote -- and can't marry!!

[april]

105. so where can we see this draft??

[Jackpine Radical]

107. Brilliant, I dunno--but

this has gotta be about the funniest thread I've read in a long time around here.

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

108. Excellent idea!

When Corporations 'merge' can we use the word 'marriage' now?

[PJPhreak]

109. I'm Single and Willing...Sign Me Up!!

Brilliant,Simply Brilliant!

[clear eye]

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.

[badgerpup]

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:

[Cary]

112. Have someone file articles of dissolution and sue for wrongful death. n/t

[silenttigersong]

114. We can incorporate as

the progressive yo-yo company,with the stock holders being we the people a dollar a share:crazy:

[MindandSoul]

115. It certainly is an interesting idea! Could it work?

[dorktv]

116. I am happy to do the wedding.

[kestrel91316]

117. Brilliant.

[Mark D.]

118. BEYOND MARRIAGE

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!!!

[Better Believe It]

119. I like the idea! Find the three, find a minister and invite the media to attend the ceremony!