• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On May - 11 - 2012

In the high stakes game of Presidential one-upmanship, Mitt Romney has responded to President Obama’s support of gay marriage by declaring that he supports the right of corporations to marry.

“Corporations are people, my friend. White people with nice hair and attractive shoes. They can propagate and multiply just as people do and as any businessperson can attest, they can screw multiple partners,” Romney explained. “Why should they be denied the same ability to get divorced and be paid alimony that other people have?”

Announcing his position at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Romney went on to explain that gun manufacturing corporations should be allowed to have shotgun weddings, the energy industry deserves to have a nuclear family if they so choose and competing corporations should have the moral right to get into bed with each other.

When asked about Same State Corporation Marriage, Romney stated that he opposes it. “I believe in the absolute commitment to the ideals that marriage represents but depending upon what’s reflected in the latest polls, I can be flexible on that,” Romney smiled.

Romney also announced a new internet business he is launching that will be an online dating service for single corporations to meet other single corporations, with marriage in mind, called, “eHaromney”.

Dismissing the protests against corporate marriage as “fear mongering” and “prejudiced”, Romney stated that it doesn’t weaken the institution of marriage to open it up to corporations, it strengthens it.

“When you have corporations investing themselves in marriage, it affirms marriage…even if they sell short down the line and cause it to crash,” Romney added. “Marriage should not be dictated by politicians who decide who should or shouldn’t be married…if you’re straight of course…marriage should be dictated by the free market. I am a firm believer in supply side marriage, meaning that the more marriages wealthy people and corporations have, the more marriages will trickle down to the majority of Americans. We can’t afford to have a marriage deficit in this country and thanks to Obama and his regulations, we have less marriages in this nation than we should. Every time you look at the bill for your or your children’s weddings, remember who’s responsible for it being so high…Barack Obama. If we allowed corporations to provide more marriages in this country, prices would go down and we’d have more domestic, domestic security.”

Romney chuckled about having a crush on Exxon when he was a teenager and said that he can understand what corporations and those who love them are going through when they’re denied the right to marry.

“There were times in my youth when I wished so hard that I could marry who I really loved but society wouldn’t let me. I remember being taunted by lesser children, ‘If you love money so much, why don’t you marry it?’ I wish I could have and I know many like me wish they could today. Well, we may not be there yet but we are in a time where the highest court in the land has declared that corporations are people and all people…who don’t like Broadway showtunes that is…should have the right to marry in this country.”

Though he wants to return the focus of his campaign back to the economy, this is a cause Romney vows to continue to pursue.

“I’ll take credit for freeing the slaves and winning World War II but taking credit for corporations being able to marry will be the most satisfying of my preposterous claims to date,” declared Romney.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

17 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. kesmarn says:

    AdLib, thanks to this article, I’m beginning to get a clearer grasp of how these business/finance relationships work out in human terms.

    So — since corporations are people, my friend — I think we Dems might want to find a new way to sell the Dodd-Frank regulations that may require misbehaving banks to occasionally take a financial haircut. We can tweak the message a bit and say that we’re just following the lead of that distinguished businessman, Biff Romney.

    Who was the originator and inventor of the involuntary haircut.

    • AdLib says:

      Kes, love the haircut suggestion! And if the banks howl, we just chuckle back like Romney when he gave his half-assed unapology, “Hey, we’re sorry if you felt hurt by something we said or did…now come back here, you nerds! Guys, get them!” SNIP-SNIP!

  2. bito says:

    Funny stuff AdLib and a joy to read (does that sound like a book blurb or do i need “breathtaking in there someplace? Too much twitter time :-) ) My biggest fear is that they will make divorce laws tougher and I personally want to see more divorces. At least up to the national average of 50%, especially in the banking/insurance/investment/gambling bidness. I wouldn’t mind seeing a rate of 85% in that sector.

    (BTW it has been a hit on twitter and has been sent out to at least 20,000 twits)

    • AdLib says:

      Bito, whoa!!! Thank you so much for the very appreciated props and the info about the retweets we’ve gotten, it’s pretty damn amazing and incredibly cool!

      I think you’re right, the divorce rate amongst corporations would likely be towards 90% since most of them cheat and lie to begin with. They’re not loyal or committed, constantly have the roving eye for others to hit on and steal from their partners.

      There could be a whole new industry, Corporate Marriage Counseling!

  3. Brilliant addition AdLib.

    Ironically since the vast majority of CEOs are men isn’t this just another form of same sex marriage? But then again if you are in the 1% with Romney you don’t need to abide by any rules.

    Of course corporation’s version of adopting children is using them for slave labor.

    • AdLib says:

      Cheers KQ!

      I think you’re onto something there!

      And wouldn’t it be incestuous for corporations with the same shareholder families to marry???

      Bulls eye on the “adopted children” bit, Apple alone probably has “adopted” thousands of children from Foxconn in China. You know, when you think about it, Apple pays their wages, feeds and houses them albeit indirectly…your gag is damn close to the truth!

    • bito says:

      But Mitt has changed his views on adoption 3 times in the last 24 hours, maybe we will have to try and pin him down on this. Possible?

  4. Nirek says:

    Thanks for the laugh Adlib. But it may not be as far fetched as we think.

  5. choicelady says:

    Well, it IS the logical next step, isn’t it? If they register offshore though, are their little subsidiaries citizens or not? If they “merge” but then split, then merge with other corporations in marriage, are the resulting crop of new subsidiaries related to the first and if so, who’s in the will? Inheritance will get awfully confusing. Do subsidiaries have the same rights under Citizens United or are they part of the parents corporate standing, meaning they don’t have rights as separate people? Now THAT will get very confusing! Little spin offs could grow up with quite the complex!

    When Dad Corp and Mom Corp decide to shut one of their subsidiaries down -- is that an abortion and is it legal under the Hyde Amendment? If NOT then is this how we can end the federal tax write offs and cash back to the parent companies? Wow. Who knew Henry’d finally be worth something?

    This all seems to be Rmoney’s logical progression of “corporations are people, my friend”. Bricks and mortar now have more rights than you and I do in family law as well as corporate.

    That, ultimately, was the goal of Reagan’s “Morning in America”. Only since he was not a literate guy, it really should have been “Mourning in America.” It’s all that’s left, isn’t it?

    • AdLib says:

      😆 CL, my biggest fear is actually Anchor Subsidiaries! Foreign corporations come to America just to have a merger and a “dividend” then get instant American citizenship for their “start up”!

      We’ve got to keep American government subsidies for American corporate people and protect the sanctity of corporate marriages!

    • bito says:

      Funny stuff, C’Lady! 😆

    • Actually I’ve often heard business partnerships be described as a marriage. It’s a little bit of a running joke in business. Many things we thing of as marriage rights are shared in business partnerships.

      That just gave me a cynical idea. Gay couples in states like NC should start up their own business partnerships and get many of the rights they would not get as individuals. Obviously it would not make up for the 2nd citizen status in those states but it would still be a stick in the eye to the right wing. Think about it ‘Bob Smith and Ted Jones Love each Other and are Married LLC’.

  6. escribacat says:

    😆 But where do they have their gift registry? On Wall Street?

    • AdLib says:

      Hey Escrib! Sorry, forgot to mention that they’re registered off shore.

      I do know that they’ve got tax-free repatriated revenues, government subsidies and deregulations on their list so if you’re wondering what you can get them…


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features