If, according to the recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of political contributions, a corporation has the same rights as people, then can a corporation get married?
That's what Sarah Steiner figured, so forget Mr. Right - she wants Mr. Right, Inc. Frank Cerabino of The Palm Beach Post wrote:
Steiner, a former co-chair of the Green Party of Florida, said her perfect corporate husband would be environmentally conscious, socially responsible and "not evil."
"I will be looking for how they behaved in past mergers," she said. [...]
Steiner, who had a brief, human-on-human marriage during her teen years, figured that she might as well try to marry a corporation this time.
"I'm looking for the same thing that any girl is looking for - a partner," she said.
And a corporate partner has its advantages.
"Are you planning to have kids?" I asked her.
"Subsidiaries," she said. "Yes. Maybe even spinoffs."
She should shoot for a S-Corp or maybe a small LLC.
That said, her "proposal" has two flaws:
1) There's no right to be married (or else she could sue in court to be given a spouse) and
2) bigamy is illegal.
She thinks individuals should have free speech, but groups of individuals should not. So it is fine for a single rich person to rent a highly visible billboard on the interstate as it approaches a city, in order to express an opinion. But if a whole bunch of non-rich people disagree with that opinion, and want to post their own response, they cannot sum their small contributions and enter a contract for their own billboard, because that would be corporate speech and a contract with a group, not an individual.