Skip navigation

Sometimes when studying, I notice certain things. For instance, s124 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): “A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside this jurisdiction.”

As far as I can tell, there is no limitation on this in the rest of the Act. And being  an Act of Parliament, it overrides the common law to the extent of inconsistency, as any good law student should know. Obvious consequences: corporations can sue in their own name for wrongs done to it, it has the power to enter into contracts etc.

My question: if the corporation has all the powers of an individual, does that include other powers. Not the right to vote, as that is a right (not a power or legal capacity). But how about the power and capacity to enter into contracts of marriage?

Now, you may say that the old marriage law prohibits this. But clearly, you haven’t been reading up on your doctrines of statutory interpretation. What about the doctrine of implied repeal? This says the later act (for example, the Corporations Act) will override the older law (say the marriage act) if the necessary implication is that it is inconsistent. Clearly it is, for the Corporations Act grants the capacity to enter into contracts (including contracts of marriage). The Marriage Act defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. Not including a corporation. (Unless you define Corporations as a “man or a woman”. Which is another thing, if transgender people have a right (somewhat forced upon them) to have a gender, then so should corporations!)

In other words, the Marriage Act is old and dated. Parliament has evinced an intention to get rid of it. Let us finally end the discrimination against Corporations merely because they were not brought up in our privileged environment as “natural persons” under the law. Let us cease to debase them with descriptions such as “creatures of statute”.

The global financial crisis has lead to increased discrimination and attacks upon Corporations. Their names have been sullied and they have been subject to increased government restrictions on their actions, particularly in socialist America. They have had their property taken from them in massive government bailouts. And all for no fault of their own! The people who perpetrated the crimes that lead to the GFC were all directors of corporations, “natural persons” perpetrating silent discrimination against corporations, raping and pillaging them.  Our politicians are all, whether man or woman, natural persons and not corporations. Aside from fringe groups like the Republican party and moderate Democrats, not a single politician represents corporate interests. This must stop!

Some may argue that this leads us down a deep and slippery slope. If we decree that people might marry corporations, then we are allowing polygamy. But why not? My friend Dan is one of these discriminated against peoples. He loves Apple dearly. Why should he be deprived of his ability to marry Apple Co simply because some old judge in San Francisco beat him to it? Why shouldn’t Microsoft have the right to marry both of its facebook fans?

My friends, it is time to recognise that Corporations have a right to marry. but not gay marriage. That would be unbiblical.



  1. Before I read the last bit of your post about your friend Dan, I was totally going to comment with:

    “I love Apple.”

    “Well then if you love it so much why don’t you marry it” *must be said in the voice of a 5 year old*

    “You know what, I will!”

    But that would be superfluous. Damn. I just realized that what I spent the last ten seconds typing is superfluous.


    As for gay marriage, damn right it is, and don’t you forget it. If you do, I’ll have to take you to one of those evangelical megachurches the next time you’re in the states to set you straight.

    • thejackalscodex
    • Posted September 15, 2009 at 2:08 pm
    • Permalink
    • Reply

    Goddamn none of you ever wanted to go Saddleback with me!

    (No, not Brokeback, that’s something slightly different).

  2. I remember you expressing your desire to go winter break. If I hadn’t been so busy, I would have gone with you. I like to go every so often and bash on the atheists and gays*. It keeps me young… 😉

    * and by that, I mean I would love to go just to make fun of the crazy wingnuts.

    But, if/when you ever come back to the US, we are *so* going.

    • thejackalscodex
    • Posted September 15, 2009 at 5:31 pm
    • Permalink
    • Reply

    I believe that the case of Ted Haggard is eloquent to the proposition that
    crazy wingnuts = atheists and gays.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] blogging, I am reinvigorating my campaign to protect and preserve marriage. Following on from my campaign to give corporate persons the same right to marriage as “natural” persons and to protect marriage from blacks, asians and gays, I am now […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: