The Romancing of Google: Corporate Personhood and Marriage Equality

Read more about the project on Linda Samuel's blog, Cause of the Week.

Press releases are below. A video of the marriage proposal is here. (clearly I'm not an actor.)


The idea came from a series of snide remarks my boyfriend and I exchanged regarding the Supreme Court ruling, one which was that 'corporations would probably have the right to marry before gays'. My first reaction was "Wow. I can finally marry Google." I have a history of "falling in love" with Google (really just falling in love with a feature) and had written previously about humans falling in love with companies -- basically an exaggerated form of brand loyalty. I tend to find exaggeration an interesting way to get a message across, so I combined my corporate devotion with this strategy of exaggeration as a way to expose the slew of problems emerging from corporations gaining human rights. Why not exaggerate the ramifications of rulings like this and actually prepare a marriage proposal to see what questions then arise?

I took the marriage proposal seriously. In an ideal situation, Google would say 'Yes' and we would begin a battle alongside gays and lesbians for marriage equality. Then it is a race to see who gets a ruling first: human + human or, human + thing. Just the absurdity of it all was a good enough place to start.

In doing all this, I did not expect to get a response from Google. The larger problem is not about corporations gaining rights, but about humans being denied their rights. There are numerous historical documents to begin describing the situation at hand. By situation I refer to this: Corporations are persons and citizens, and as "legal persons" they are granted human rights, such as--gasp--freedom of speech. The first is the United States Constitution of 1787, which opens up the problem of property as person. Because slavery was banned in England, America's founders avoided using the term 'slave', and defined, instead, 'slaves' as owned persons--in effect, turning property into person. Second, is the U.S. Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment -- Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, and Petition -- meant to protect us from the potential oppressiveness of our Government. Third, is the 14th amendment, which fixes the 'slave' problem by formally defining citizenship and protecting a person's civil and political rights ('thing becomes person, becomes citizen, gains rights'). In reality, as shown in the January 2010 Supreme Court case regarding freedom of speech for corporations, it becomes a tool for corporations to assert their position as persons.

At the core of this situation is the question: what is a human? What are the "human rights" and "civil liberties" we've shed blood for and, in many cases, are still fighting for? The latest right currently garnering activity and debate is the right to marry whom you love. While gay and lesbian rights advocates are gathering signatures in California to abolish Prop 8 which approved an amendment to the State's constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the Supreme Court re-affirms the personhood of corporations and the extension of their rights to a right at one time reserved for humans. (Corporations were originally granted free speech rights in 1947. The latest January ruling extends their right to free speech in elections.) It does not matter what that right is or does, what matters is that the corporation has been given a "human" right. A non-living entity, a thing, is given a human right, while concurrently, citizens of this nation, humans by birth, are denied human rights.

Human rights are the qualitative measure of living which human beings carry to the full extent upon their birth (refer to the UN Declaration of Human Rights). These rights are not something bestowed upon a newborn, but come into existence with the birth of that child. However, human-ness is also quantitative, meaning that sadly one person has more, or less, rights than another person because some State has decided to "grant" or "repeal" a portion of their rights. When new definitions of 'person' are introduced, misused and intentionally misinterpreted, this quantitative aspect of carrying rights becomes an issue we need to address. If a slave can go from 'thing' to 'person', is it true in reverse, that a 'person' can become a 'thing' when stripped of rights? If a homosexual person does not carry the same rights as a heterosexual person, does that therefore expel the homosexual person from being a human being? Is s/he in effect an entity of no life value?

The issue of right granting/repealing is a deep problem that goes beyond fearing corporations gaining more rights (or the dilemma of a human marrying a corporation). It is indeed about the larger persecution of the human being, about the limit to which the body is extended or compressed by law. Freedom of reproductive choice is another such question of rights and laws. My fear, if our highest courts continue on such a path of disregard for the rights of select individuals, is that of the unborn fetus gaining personhood separate from the body who produced it. Then my own body could turn against me and perhaps have the law on its side.

Press Releases:

***BREAKING NEWS/CONFIRMED***
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
9:35am Friday February 11, 2010

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—Xárene's marriage proposal to Google has been intercepted. The whereabouts of the original copy addressed to the Board of Directors has disappeared and the impeccable search capabilities of Google's algorithms have not been able to locate the marriage proposal.

Based on the Paris Love video response incident reported on Monday, it is believed that Xárene has been censored, and not in China, but here on American soil.

With Valentine's Day looming overhead, Xárene has not yet lost hope.

###


***BREAKING NEWS***
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
8:08am Monday February 8, 2010

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—Xárene's video response to Google's search for love in Paris has been censored. After multiple attempts, Xárene's video is not available for viewing. A text comment linking to Xárene's marriage proposal to Google has also been censored. Mr. Eric Schmidt was contacted for a response; none was received.

With Valentine's Day fast approaching, Xárene is worried that her message of love is being kept from Google and that the two may never be able to unite.

###


***UPDATE***
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
10:55am Friday February 5, 2010

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—Google's mail service has confirmed that the marriage proposal delivered by Los Angeles-based media artist, Xárene, has been delivered. Intended recipients and/or representatives of recipients are in possession of the written proposal and Xárene now awaits a response, hopefully in time for Valentine's Day.

###


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday February 4, 2010

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—Los Angeles-based media artist, Xárene will be delivering a marriage proposal to Google. The proposal, a beautifully hand-written artifact, delivered Thursday morning at the Googleplex, is addressed to Google and in care of Board of Directors, with an equally beautiful carbon copy sent in care of Mr. Kent Walker, Vice President and General Counsel.

The proposal, sincere in its message of love and commitment, is also a statement on personhood in the United States of America. Will marriage equality extend to legal persons (corporations with personhood)? Can a natural person and a legal person of opposite sexual identities carry the same rights as heterosexual persons?

The marriage of Google and Xárene will shed light on the perplexing journey of persons in love.

###