Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Seattle Woman Marries Corporation in Intimate Downtown Ceremony

Posted by on Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Hark yee, internet romantics: Ring the churchbells! Release the dove hoards! We've got a wedding to celebrate!

This afternoon, Seattle resident Angela Vogel was issued a marriage certificate to wed Corporate Person (who we can only presume identifies as heterosexual male) in an intimate downtown ceremony. You can check out the video, pics, and sermon over here.

"I'm incredibly excited," Vogel gushed when reached by phone after the ceremony. "I'm drinking."

Mr. and Mrs. Corporate Person
  • I-103 campaign
  • Mr. and Mrs. Corporate Person

Of course, this was no normal wedding. Corporate Person is only a month-and-a-half old, which makes Vogel a total cradle robber. Also, the wedding was a stunt cooked up by the people running city Initiative 103 (.PDF), an ambitious measure slated for 2013 that seeks to do some sensible stuff, like strip corporations of their personhood status, free speech, and other constitutional rights, along with some batshit stuff, like requiring developers to gain the approval of "neighborhood majorities" before starting most new development projects in Seattle.

I've reached out to a few lawyers to help me parse through the constitutionality of the initiative. But they won't be able to answer today's far more pressing questions, like: How is the happy couple celebrating their honeymoon?

"Unfortunately, Corporate Person is a pretty cheap guy so I’m going to just be hanging out in Seattle, drinking booze for my honeymoon," Vogel says.

And will the state allow Angela Vogel to remain Mrs. Corporate Person?

"This license will undoubtedly be rejected because one of the entities is only 1.5 months old," explains Cameron Satterfield, a spokesperson for the Department of Executive Services (which forwards marriage licenses on to the Department of Health for validation).

"You have to be 18 to be legally married in the State of Washington," Satterfield helpfully adds.

UPDATE: Satterfield says, "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."

Way to gleefully shit on the parade of another pair of consenting adults things, guys. On the bright side, I hear Boeing's single.

 

Comments (20) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Hodi 23
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.) :)
Posted by Hodi on July 18, 2012 at 11:24 AM · Report this
21
@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.
Posted by gloomy gus on July 18, 2012 at 8:21 AM · Report this
20
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.
Posted by LaraLive on July 18, 2012 at 3:10 AM · Report this
19
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!
Posted by madcap on July 18, 2012 at 2:17 AM · Report this
18
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.
Posted by AngelaV on July 18, 2012 at 2:12 AM · Report this
pdonahue 17
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......
Posted by pdonahue on July 17, 2012 at 11:59 PM · Report this
16
@11, I read it, and all i can guess is that you're a good example of the perfect audience for it..
Posted by gloomy gus on July 17, 2012 at 10:35 PM · Report this
15
The name of the corporation of the filing with the Secretary of State of WA is: Corporate Person
Posted by 99% on July 17, 2012 at 10:04 PM · Report this
Sandiai 14
*don't "you" have to
Posted by Sandiai on July 17, 2012 at 9:33 PM · Report this
Sandiai 13
Yeah, also, if you're going to marry a corporation like it's a person, don't to have to at least identify it?
Posted by Sandiai on July 17, 2012 at 9:32 PM · Report this
pdonahue 11
#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.
Posted by pdonahue on July 17, 2012 at 9:08 PM · Report this
rob! 10
On the downside, Cienna, Boeing's 96 years old.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on July 17, 2012 at 8:21 PM · Report this
Sandiai 9
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.
Posted by Sandiai on July 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM · Report this
malcolmxy 8
@1

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.
Posted by malcolmxy on July 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM · Report this
7
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?
Posted by gloomy gus on July 17, 2012 at 5:52 PM · Report this
biffp 6
What if (like Bain Capital) the corporation you marry is fucking a bunch of other corporations? Do you divorce or do a reverse merger?
Posted by biffp on July 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM · Report this
bijhan 5
Anyone have a corporation that is over 18 years old that wants to give this another go?
Posted by bijhan on July 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM · Report this
MacCrocodile 4
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.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on July 17, 2012 at 4:59 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 2
At least the spouse, as a corporation, can outsource any children to overseas sweatshops.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on July 17, 2012 at 4:53 PM · Report this
1
Will Init 103 disallow corporations to own patents and copyrights (originally intended by the Constitution to reward individuals) ?
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on July 17, 2012 at 4:10 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy