Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

Seattle woman weds corporation (PHOTOS)

Published time: July 19, 2012 17:05
Edited time: July 19, 2012 21:05
Photo: Alex Garland Photography http://www.alexgarlandphotography.com

Single life got you down? But let me guess — that special someone seems impossible to find. An activist in Seattle found a surefire solution to her bachelorette blues, while at the same time sticking it to the Supreme Court.

Seattle resident Angela Vogel was given state permission to proceed with a planned wedding after officials in King County, Washington this week signed off on a marriage license between the beautiful bride-to-be and one Mr. Corporate Person: a one-and-a-half-month-old corporation established earlier this year. Jeff Reifman, a Seattle-based technologist and writer, is listed on Corporate Person’s official papers as its registered agent.

King County Executive Dow Constantine authorized a marriage license between Vogel and Corporate Person this week, and the bride and groom just couldn’t be happier.

"I'm incredibly excited," Vogel tells reporters from Seattle’s The Stranger. "I'm drinking."

Mr. Person — well, Mr. Reifman — adds to the Washington Bus blog that it wasn’t exactly the easiest thing to have his corporation legally permitted to wed a human, but if the US justice system can allow big businesses the same rights as people under the Citizens United ruling, frankly, it only makes sense. And if you think otherwise, take it up with Mitt Romney.

"I was really thrilled and the ceremony was wonderful," Reifman tells Washington Bus. "It was a little difficult to get them to do it, but they took my money and they provided a marriage license. We talked to them about the Supreme Court offering corporate personhood."

"The Supreme Court has said that corporations are persons with equal protections under the Fourteenth Amendment, which means they have all the same rights as you or me (unless you happen to be gay or lesbian).So a corporation has just as much right to marry a woman that I have to marry a woman," Reifman adds.


Photo: Alex Garland Photography http://www.alexgarlandphotography.com
Photo: Alex Garland Photography http://www.alexgarlandphotography.com

The bride and corporation exchanged vows in a ceremony proceeded over by Rev. Rich Lang, who is both a pastor and columnist.

“Corporate Person and Angela, may your children become sacrifices in war for greater market gain, may your wealth be without end, may your desire for more always be insatiable,” Rev. Lang wished the couple. “May you begin every day in expectation of profit, and end every night resting secure in each other’s bank accounts. May your continuous lies never be revealed, may your lawlessness never be held accountable, may your theft be forgiven, and may you own this nation lock, stock and barrel until freedom is no more.”

Reifman is behind an initiative in Seattle that, if passed, would strike down the corporate personhood guarantees created under last year’s Supreme Court ruling between Citizens United and Federal Election Commission. When America’s top justices signed off on the decision, corporations were guaranteed some of the same constitutional rights assigned to the American public.

"If they were to reject the license, they would be facing a lawsuit from Corporate Person, and the city shouldn't waste money defending yet another lawsuit," Reifman adds.

Only moments after Reiman made that statement, however, the City of Seattle came down hard and now might actually have some legal hoops to hop through. In a statement made to the Stranger after the certificate was signed, Cameron Satterfield of the Department of Executive Services revealed that the city is already attacking the happy couple.

"King County Records and Licensing Division 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,” Satterfield explains.

Photo: Alex Garland Photography http://www.alexgarlandphotography.com
Photo: Alex Garland Photography http://www.alexgarlandphotography.com

Comments (13)

SPARKS7366 (unregistered) 11.08.2012 21:40

Quiet interesting.  Does this mean the if she creates corporate babies, lets say during the honeymoon, she may have as many tax deductions as she will incorporate every nine months?  I'm thinking if she has 20 corporate person's born, nine months after the wedding that would be an awesome tax deduction.!!I take my hat of to you dear for being so entrepreneurial in your quest to be within the law of the country.  May all marry a corporation person and deduct the hell out of your taxes.   

What I really like about this,  that it does not discriminate,  Now every human being can marry a corporation person legally and deduct that person until they are over the age of 24 or have been through college.  So if you don't want to pay taxes anymore then just have corporate baby persons and deduct them on your taxes.  
I'm really going to have to look into this,  I'm thinking of having 9,corporate noncuplets persons, each year, for 10 years.  I should be able to deduct 90 plus 2 for tax exemption, .  1. Myself, 2. my corporate person wife, and 3. my corporate person babies that my corporate person wife will have so we can have a big family with I belief would be tax credits.  
Awesome! So when you file for a divorce with the corporate spouse and you win in court of corporate person children custody for 90 corporate children until they are 18 you will make a killing or you can ask the courts to place the corporate spouse in jail for not paying corporate child support.   I am really going to have to analyze all of this.  Good luck on your honeymoon may you bear many corporate person children.

0

Undo

Miguel (unregistered) 30.07.2012 23:17

I was looking everywhere and this ppeopd up like nothing!

0

Undo

Samuel Adams (unregistered) 24.07.2012 18:44

I know this is Russia Today, and you folks aren't as up on your American history and founding document knowledge (don't worry, most Americans are no better).  But you had a few glaring mistakes in this article.

#1 - Americans do not have "Constitutional Rights." We have inalienable rights which certain provisions of the Constitution were crafted to protect.

#2 - Our rights are not "assigned" to us.  They are inherent in our beings.  (this is true of ALL Men, not just Americans, but we're the only nation to officially recognize this fact)  We are endowed by our Creator with rights. (whomever or whatever that "Creator" might be)  Since government DOES NOT create people, then it is NOT the source of rights.  Government is not the source of rights.  Government was created to protect rights that already existed.

A cursory reading of our Declaration of Independence and a more thorough reading of our Constitution, along with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, should set you on the right path here.

+2

Undo

View all comments (13)
Add comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.

100 Text

– required fields

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us