Views (cont'd): Corporations; marriage
Sep. 2nd, 2017 02:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mtbcI have my doubts about the typical status of corporations. Glossing over the difference between civil and criminal offenses, it unnerves me to protect people from being fully punished for their bad acts. Sure, perhaps most employees and owners ought not be jointly liable. However, it is people who select and execute a corporation's bad acts, whether through managerial negligence or being more directly the agents of harm. I thus favor being able to pierce the corporate veil enough to reach those individuals who truly bear responsibility for corporate acts.
People also come together via marriage to form another kind of entity which again can receive various favorable tax benefits, which often has some legal notion of community property within it, joint liability for debt, etc., though to various degrees and with varying flexibility depending on the jurisdiction. My inclination is to regard the spiritual and emotional dimensions of marriage as being outside the law: let the churches or others have whatever unofficial ceremonies they like for whomever they like, even call it
I do not see any particular reason to limit this legal change of status, what I am calling
Of course, how things now seem to have settled is that same-sex marriage is becoming another kind of marriage but among only two people, which at least makes many happy; indeed, we help to celebrate a same-sex wedding later this month. In the US I expect that even a newly conservative Supreme Court will not now overturn same-sex marriage and that those in stable polygamous relationships do not have enough lobbying power to cause any further change in the foreseeable future.
Speculating wildly: If I am thinking that the corporate veil ought not to have such great power and that the legal side of marriage could be generalized then I wonder if I can workably stretch corporations and marriage enough to become technically the same in law. For example, with the above visa issue, in some circumstances corporations can apply for visas for employees given evidence of adequate support and similar; workers on H-1B visas are permitted even intent to immigrate.
People also come together via marriage to form another kind of entity which again can receive various favorable tax benefits, which often has some legal notion of community property within it, joint liability for debt, etc., though to various degrees and with varying flexibility depending on the jurisdiction. My inclination is to regard the spiritual and emotional dimensions of marriage as being outside the law: let the churches or others have whatever unofficial ceremonies they like for whomever they like, even call it
marriage, leaving the less-loaded
civil partnershipterm for the legal state wherein by mutual agreement people become next of kin, somewhat able to act on each other's behalf and jointly face the consequences, be considered together for means testing, etc.
I do not see any particular reason to limit this legal change of status, what I am calling
civil partnership, by sex or even group size. It may seem wrong for a man to have twenty foreign women as partners but applying for immigrant visas for family members includes measures to ensure that the relationship is genuine and that immigrants can be adequately supported and housed so I would not expect those situations to be a frequent occurrence; many citizens have trouble getting a visa for even one spouse.
Of course, how things now seem to have settled is that same-sex marriage is becoming another kind of marriage but among only two people, which at least makes many happy; indeed, we help to celebrate a same-sex wedding later this month. In the US I expect that even a newly conservative Supreme Court will not now overturn same-sex marriage and that those in stable polygamous relationships do not have enough lobbying power to cause any further change in the foreseeable future.
Speculating wildly: If I am thinking that the corporate veil ought not to have such great power and that the legal side of marriage could be generalized then I wonder if I can workably stretch corporations and marriage enough to become technically the same in law. For example, with the above visa issue, in some circumstances corporations can apply for visas for employees given evidence of adequate support and similar; workers on H-1B visas are permitted even intent to immigrate.
