Washington woman marries corporation

Only in a world where marriage is understood as a legal construct, divorced from its procreative orientation, would a person attempt to marry a corporation.

But that’s exactly what happened in the state of Washington the other day.

Angela Vogel, a Seattle resident, decided to wed “Corporate Person” in a ceremony presided over by United Methodist Pastor Rich Lang.

The event was reportedly a protest over the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

Though her marriage to “Corporate Person” was ruled legally invalid, it’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time someone in Seattle has tried to marry something other than a person. In January of this past year, Babylonia Aivaz married a 107-year-old building in an attempt to stop the spread of gentrification.

As disturbing as all this is, I can’t help but think that none of this would happen if marriage was still understood as a union between one man and one woman.



  • tz1

    Correction, if marriage was defined as an indissoluble, permanent, and fecund union.

    Instead of fighting to preserve the temporary and sterile institution, why not petition for (lack of a better term) covenant marriage that would require proof of adultery, abuse, or abandonment to dissolve, and the victim gets alimony and the children. And have all the priests refuse to preside over any lesser contract.

  • Rob

    I’m a bit confused now. CatholicVote supported Citizens United and reaps the benefits as a 501(c)(4). Now you’re complaining about corporate personhood?

  • Braden

    Stephen, can you explain why if a corporation is a person and has the same First Amendment rights as a person, why should other rights not also extend to this person? Don’t we as Catholics-and as Americans-believe that no person should be denied the rights that other persons enjoy? If I, as a person, have a right to have my marriage recognized by the government, why does a corporation not have that right?

    • Stephen Kokx

      Braden, you are obviously confused about what constitutes a human being and what the courts have ruled in regards to “personhood.” But in any case, I wonder if you could help me understand something. Could you identify for me this corporation’s gender? I mean, as a person, it must have a gender right? Or, as a supposed Catholic, do you believe that gender is a social construct and that there are multiple genders and that such a question doesn’t matter when it comes to marriage? Certainly you, as a Catholic, cannot support such a position, can you? Do you, Braden, believe that corporations have souls? I would find it difficult for even you, as a Catholic, to believe that is true. If they do, do you think that human beings, who are made in the image of God, can or even should marry something that does’t have one?

      • joey

        Sex refers to the biological nature of human beings, while gender refers to society’s interpretation of how each of the sexes should act. For example, the sexes are male and female, while gender is usually categorized by masculine, feminine, or neuter. There is a clear observation in determining people’s sex. However, who or what determines what is masculine or feminine? It’s not necessarily determined by the biological sex or tradition, for then we wouldn’t have women in the workplace or women soldiers due to specific limitations. Does the Church have the authority to determine what a man should be, and what a woman should be?

    • Phil

      God defined marriage. You can call a chevy a ford but in the end you would just be a confused chevy owner.
      Same thing with marriage. You can get a licensed preacher to claim you are married to anyone or anything BUT in the end GOD will explaing it to you(you won’t get it when HE does, you’ll just be griping that you are supposed to be in heaven and not in hell). GOD tells us what IS. We sin when we tell GOD what “is”. GOD will show us in the end that it does not depend on “what” our definition of “is” is.

  • CJ1

    “Corporations are people, my friend. Gays? Not so much.”

  • patback

    I should add, that in 1976, Janenne Smith married her pet rock. I’d look for other examples where people tried to marry inanimate objects before the scary gays were allowed to marry and destroy our understanding of that institution, but frankly, it just wouldn’t be worth it. You, and others, are going to continue to believe that gays are out to destroy society regardless of how many times it’s proven otherwise. You are going to continue to look for any stupid issue that you can think of that can be blamed on the gays, you’ll continue to try to incite prejudice and misunderstanding. Luckily, the rest of America is waking up, and you really just look silly now.

    • Panda Rosa

      Sorry, but your first sentence didn’t help.
      I just wonder why you brought up the woman marrying her pet rock, it just skews the rest of your comment for me. I keep thinking stuff like “does she wear her husband on her finger? are the kids into rock music?”
      The only “blame” I put on the gays is that yes they are changing laws/society, whether for good, ill, or both. How far this goes is anyone’s call. But I think we can agree that a “corporation” is NOT a person, and calling this a “marriage” is absurd.

  • patback

    Phenomenal. Romney did say, after all, that “corporations are people”. It only stands to reason, that other people can marry other people after that statement. Oh wait, this is all because gay people can marry? Where did you make that connection?

    • Still Looking

      Corporations are people, not a person. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, not 1 woman and many people who have joined together for a cause.

      • Franklin

        And Romney has like 8 grandmothers. What’s your point?

      • Michael

        Corporations are people, but a corporation is a person. Should the right of marriage be denied to that person? And under what justification?



Receive our updates via email.