While Wednesday's landmark ruling in U.S. Federal court decided that California's Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, an appeals process will likely take the showdown over gay marriage all the way to the Supreme Court. Legal scholars believe that based on the court's intent under Chief Justice Roberts, the case will achieve a milestone by granting the equal rights provided through marriage to corporations, at last.
"The Court ruled in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission that corporations are in essence individual people with the same rights to free speech, and that as free speech actually means 'purchased media,' corporations have more free speech than individuals," explained Rick Steadman, a legal scholar versed in the issues surrounding the case. "The prevailing rationale in the Court is likely to extend the right to marry to corporations as well, but with their combined resources, expect the formation of 'mega-marriages' that are so vast, large numbers of the population will be required to attend the wedding, send a gift from the corporate registry and clink their drinking glasses with their silverware if they wish to see any courtesy corporate canoodling." The Court may clarify that states have their own jurisdiction to address the logistics required for their populations to do the electric slide.
While critical spectators might find the inclusion of corporate matrimony beyond the legal scope of the thoughtfully written decision by Federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker, legal experts advise that those spectators suck the high hard one and consider the agenda of the current Supreme Court. "When the group Citizens United brought the FEC to court over their corporate-backed film, Hillary: The Movie, it was to win an exception in existing campaign law for on-demand viewing less than 30 days before an election. The Supreme Court expanded that question to somehow allow unlimited, anonymous corporate spending on all elections, even though there existed, like, half a century of laws about that already. It was the opinion of the court that the several prior generations of the other branches of the United States government could -- nay, should -- go suck the high hard one," continued Steadman.
Steadman was careful to tamp down rumors that Chief Justice Roberts, who has expressed concern for the rights of corporations continually, may himself be reaching a turning point where the youngest-appointed Chief Justice in history comes out of the closet himself as a corporation. "More importantly, gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry might finally find that a court-mandated right -- as long as they secure corporate sponsorship, of course."
The major companies looking to expand into corporatized gay marriage include a number of the brands that market prognosticators would anticipate, such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Perrier, and Mini Cooper, as well as entrepreneurs like Martha Stewart, Sean "P. Diddy/Puffy" Combs, and Donald Trump, who promised to sponsor "the queers tying the knot on my solid gold yacht." Even "Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis has sought to expand the cause of corporate-sponsored lesbian weddings by conducting ceremonies within a crowd of topless underage girls. "It's a win-win proposal for America," declared Francis.
John Wellington Ennis's film PAY 2 PLAY: Democracy's High Stakes explores the Citizens United decision and the obstacles candidates face running for office.
Follow John Wellington Ennis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnennis
Corporations have been considered persons since 1868, not since the Citizens United decision. A corporation is unquestionably an alliance between human beings. A group of human beings has as much a right to free speech as one human being. The decision was not about corporate donations but rather a corporation's right to speak through ads.
For example, if you're a cashier at Target, what say do have over how the company's political "speech" (i.e., money) is used? The answer is none. You can complain and that's about it. You have no input whatsoever on how and where the money is spent. You don't even get a vote.
In fact, customers probably have more of a voice than you over how the company operates even though they may have no direct stake in the company; e.g., they can organize a boycott. You, on the other hand, have the threat of termination hanging over your head if you complain or do more than anonymously protest.
All that said, I have no problem with people being able to pool their money and spend it as they collectively see fit. However, considering that collective its own unique person with rights is absurd and becomes even more absurd when some people in the collective are much more equal than others.