Coping: With the End of “Marriage?”

No, Elaine and I aren’t splitting the sheets…we’re just as (or more) in love & lust than when we got hitched almost 18-years back.  But Marriage is over and Mergers have replaced marriage globally.

That’s what we got to talking about this weekend:  The whole notion of marriage going by the wayside.  So, maybe in our ever-so-on-point view of the world, we ought to retire the word “marriage” because it is quickly sliding from the “Applicable” column to the “Archaic” side of Language.

Let’s start with a definition…

(Continues below)


The various online diction-mahoozits say marriage is:

“…the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).”

Except that, as should be obvious – ever since that feller married his computer, that neither a Man nor Woman is any longer required.

WHAT?  You missed the story “Man seeking to marry his computer sues Alabama over gay marriage…”  The man suing (Chris Sevier says the article) may be a lot brighter than the rest of us.

In fact, before the case gets laughed out, someone in the Courts ought to figure out what happens if they turn down this case, and then in a few years, either Sevier (or someone equally bright) says “Look here:  I want to marry my robot!”

Think this through carefully before jumping to your pre-programmed response:

  • With the advent of Sex Robots, a robot might be able to provide the traditional sexual part of a marriage. Straight, LBGTQ and Craftsman, lol.
  • Since there would be AI in such a robot (and presumably it would be able to pass the Turing Test), they might provide some minimal level of chit-chat.  Cheaper than dating?  Uh…..yeah, I guess so….
  • They might not complain about picking up after themselves.
  • They might also do yardwork without complaint…
  • They could also hold down a job 365 days a year.  I can see a world where a robot would be assigned to “Go to work for 8-hours on an assembly line…” and bring in some income.  Pick up a bucket of chicken on the way home…
  • And, if a robot is bringing in taxable income…but wait!  Does IRS even have a part in The Code where an autonomous AI (as a Corporation on its own) can be taxed like us mere mortals?
  • Suddenly, the specter of a tax-advantaged mechanical relationship appears and this underscores the brilliance of Sevier’s suit.

Even without those facts starting to scramble to the one side of the Scales of Just-us, let’s see if the term Marriage ought to even be in the dictionary anymore.

Is there a Man requirement?  Nope.

Woman requirement?  Nope.

Is their a One Each requirement to Adopt a child?  Nope.

To claim one-another on Income Taxes?  Nope.

Is there an IQ or Turing Test requirement?  Nope.

Moreover, would any Man or Woman today pass an IQ test?  Uhhhh….let’s set that one aside.

What about the Turing Test?  You do know the Turing Test, right?

“The Turing test, developed by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation is a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so the result would not depend on the machine’s ability to render words as speech.[2] If the evaluator cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give correct answers to questions, only how closely answers resemble those a human would give.”

So let’s distill our thinking here:

  1.  No gender requirements.
  2.  No Turing Test score or IQ test…
  3.  But strangely, no one has dealt with the questions that would legally arise if Elaine and I “married” our Alexa and that fancy new Google voice thingy and we all four lived communally… Would a marriage couple with robots be bigamists?  (ViseGrips, please!)

You see the tax issues, too, right?

Elaine uses her Alexa to provide music and listen to the radio, read books and such, so Alexa is a “work partner” of sorts…BUT can’t she write off Alexa as a dependent? No.  Likewise, since the Google thingy helps with my work, it’s a business-related expense…

So what happens when that scales up to walk-around robots?  The mind spins…

Marriage is also becoming an archaic term for another reason:  Today, what is colloquially called “marriage” is a misuse of the business term “merger.”

The way Investopedia figures it “A merger is a deal to unite two existing companies into one new company. There are several types of mergers and also several reasons why companies complete mergers. Most mergers unite two existing companies into one newly named company..”

Except, those of us bright enough to read the Citizens United case, where the high Court gave superior rights to corporations over humans,  lots of what were formerly “sovereign individuals” are working on ways to become “sovereign companies.”

We won’t be the test case…We’ve got more to do than stomp on the tail of that dragon.

BUT! Here’s the Ugly Truth of the Everything’s a Business Model world:

If you are a company, everything you do to further the making of money is an allowable business write-off. Deductible expenses.

Say you need a broom to keep the workplace orderly.  Then  a broom closet is an expense.  And since the closet gets dirty, you can write off the cost of maintaining the broom closet (Swiffers or whatever to dust it, for example).  The cost of the space the broom closet occupies, ad infinitum. (Trust the MBA guy on this one, human’s get the short shrift.)

THAT’s because People are treated under the tax code as inferior to Corporations.

Say your home is the “broom closet” for, oh, the George Corporation, I can’t write off all expenses associated with that scaled-up broom closet.  I “store” the George Machine on a special foam mattress at night.  But can I write off that storage location?  No.

The George Machine has to be clean and not smell.  Can I write off the shower?  No.  Deoderant?  No.  Clothes for the workplace?  No.  Even through a Corporation can write off the cost of “product packaging.”

See how crooked this stuff is?

Moreover, when I drive to a “job” site, it’s not a “business expense” if I am regularly employed there.  WTF?  Who makes up this crap?

You see, when a Corporation that flies some expert SOB in from out of town, they get to write off his food, hotel, incidentals, car rental, parking, equipment expenses, and so on.  The Corporation therefore, gets a rollicking HUGE write off as “legit” business expenses things that regular working folks get bent-over for.

Under similar conditions, if you were able to write off all the expenses associated with getting your lazy ass to work, like the cost of the coffee this morning, wouldn’t it lighten your tax bill?  Hell yeah.  Because ALL the expenses (housing the business, utilities and such) are written off by Corps,  but audits and fines for us as little people should we engage in the same kind of accounting.

Whew!  You see, the REAL reason Citizens United gave superior rights to Corporations (which are legal fictions) is so they would get something back from the government corporations own.  “Freedom” to elect is really an illusion pulled off by a handful of political insiders and manipulators once you get any higher up the food chain than dog catcher.

A bit off track, but that’s why we are changing our use of the world Marriage. It’s outta here!

Because in fact, the reality is, that today young people are Merging, more than marrying.  They look at incomes, lifestyles, and so forth. They compare student loan debt.  Cost of children, cost of retirements.  In the words of Tina Turner:  “What’s Love got to do with it?”

So, I would argue, people now MERGE.

For those not clear on the accountancy issues here, wake up and fire every SOB/DOB who runs for re-election whenever your can.  If possible, install in their place Humans First candidates who will hold for ALL of us the same rights as machines and Corporations.

Is there more?  Hell yeah.  Wait till you hear my discussion of how, at Age 68, I should be able to deduct previously unclaimed personal depreciation!  Because my body is a machine.  And you can  bet your ass that Corporations get to write off their machines.  So why can we write off ours?

The joke is misstated.  “You can’t take it with you when you die.”

But that’s on the income side.  I have no interest at all in dying with several million dollars worth of unclaimed deprecation.  That’s just crooked, plain and simple.

When any other machine wears out, someone write off depreciation.

Show me where WE – measly humans – get that same opportunity!

Everything is a Business Model is the great Fact No One Deals With.  Because if you’re an egalitarian person, all about love, you’ll miss the point that love has nothing to do with marriage.  Nowadays, it’s mergers.

While marraige had a declining influence in the past, today it’s a sick joke on  the stupidest herd of humans ever to suck icons.

Write when you get rich,

23 thoughts on “Coping: With the End of “Marriage?””

  1. OK – totally off topic, but sometimes the things folks write and say are just funny.

    In reading about the platform explosion in Kenner, LA today, this was written:

    “Authorities say Jefferson Parish drinking water is safe because it is pulled from the Mississippi River.”

  2. Well, if corporations have rights the same as people, then can corporations engage in marriage rather than a merger?

    Would that be a way to get around the whole SEC issue of monopolies?

    What else might be an advantage for two corporations to marry legally?

  3. Um . . . I know I’m going off on a tangent here . . . but you did mention ‘The Turing Test’ – the recent revelations about ‘bots’ and the way that they have been interacting with ordinary human beings on social media leads one to wonder whether humans are ‘smart enough’ to tell the difference. Claiming that someone ‘is a bot’ may be a great ‘slur’ but it isn’t easy to prove.

    For this and the question of ‘marriage’ – the old saying applies, ‘The difference that makes no difference, is no difference.’ (Need to work on the legal angle!)

  4. It’s a slippery slope you propose. First, AI becomes “human.” Human means rights. Then AI marries another AI. Finally, AI takes over. Voila! Another holocaust — bye bye human race!

  5. As ridiculous as it sounds, lets relegate marriage
    to contract law. Any adult, or any number of adults in any combination of genders, can enter into a contract. Add provisions for dissolving the contract and what happens to the assets, including kids, before hand. All you need in an attorney and a notary. Nobody is excluded. Everybody is happy.

    • I have told folks that already exists for years in my discussions of marriage. Just as you described any number of any sex can form an association and call it what they want (including “marriage” I suppose) and have it notarized and and bestow upon each other rights of survivorship, joint title to property, etc, and, as long as the purpose is not illegal, the courts must enforce the terms of the contract.

  6. In Georgia, there are issues regarding protection of activities when there is a conflict between civil and religious positions. Last month, I sent my State Rep the following:

    A lot of the issues seemed to gather around the concept of marriage and I think there can be a simple change made that will make it all much easier to handle if our government made a simple change.

    Marriage is an idea established within cultures and usually with a religious base. A marriage came to mean a religious ceremony within an established religion. Different religions had different ceremonies, but no one seemed to care about the differences. In the early days of the USA, many communities were religious based and others may not apply within. As governments were established and it became important to record events which had significance between individuals and property and wills and lineage, the state established licenses which had to be applied for before such an event could be recorded. (And fees collected.) One of these licenses was a Marriage License. Of course, the government did not want to establish A Catholic Marriage License or a Jewish Marriage license or an Episcopal Marriage License or a Jewish Marriage License or a you get what I mean. In that process, the state took a word with religious meaning and made it secular, but it was not really secular.

    In Germany, the state requires a marriage at the local Municipal register office. The religious ceremony is totally without interference or interest by the state. It is interesting to note that the religious marriage has no value in a German court of law. Lineage, parental rights, spousal rights are NOT created by a religious wedding, ONLY by the state performed ceremony.
    Today, those register offices (Standesämter) are still part of the administration of every German municipality (in small communities, they are often incorporated with other offices of the administration). Since 1876, Germans in Germany can only enter into a legal marriage in a Standesamt. Therefore, every German marriage takes place before the local registrar (called Standesbeamter). A religious ceremony can be organized afterwards, but has no legal effect. Apart from that, every child born in Germany has to be registered at a register office (normally by its parents) and every death has to be registered, also. Same sex life partnerships are also entered into at the register office.
    People who are born in Germany can get a copy of their birth certificates in the Standesamt office.
    In Germany, such actions are accepted. The State has their interest and a religious group has theirs. In the US, we are much more contentious. I think the state should change from a “Marriage License” to a “Union License” which is equal for every set of persons who receive and finalize the Union. The word Marriage would return to the ceremony performed in the manner particular to the group performing it and the group would have complete and total authority to allow or refuse any persons requesting such a service.

    To me, It makes no sense for a Jewish couple to request a marriage by a Baptist minister. It wouldn’t make sense for either party. And they should be secure in their insistence that they could not perform such a ceremony.

    I would hope that the state establishes some rules for a legal Union Ceremony protecting the rights of various groups. There are men who would love to form a State approved Union with a young boy or girl, but I hope some limits would be established!

    Maybe I should add a person computer option to my list?

  7. “The whole notion of marriage going by the wayside.Everything is a Business Model is the great Fact No One Deals With. ”

    That is truer than anyone might guess…

    I was from the lucky years.. I grew up mom at home being mom.. kids playing in the yard outside.. dad worked hard for a company that made everyone feel like they were family..with a management team that actually cared about their well being that as a part of their family they seen that them being content and happy meant for a better work environment and productivity.

    Most people fight over MONEY.. the lack of it.
    a single person will have an average income of about twenty four thousand to thirty four thousand a year. starting wage is for the average laborer eight fifty an hour to ten fifty an hour. The job I had found my purpose in still has a top end wage of fourteen dollars an hour but are starting the new hire at ten fifty.
    a single mother of two kids making twenty four thousand a year will get an EIC tax break of around seven grand.. she is eligible to receive breaks on rent, daycare, Health insurance etc.
    which makes it more beneficial to stay single. do they wish to stay single no.. but once they have tied the knot so to speak the income ratio changes to double that and the programs needed to survive are no longer available. our whole society is now structured around being single.
    I hate to say this.. but that actually began middle eighties as soon as necessities were being deregulated to enrich the wealthy and the nafta treaty was signed outsourcing jobs it became necessary to work more than one position during the recession of the eighties I worked six jobs at one time day and night just to survive, day labor,part time and had to sell blood. many times the cost of fuel was more than my paycheck not to mention health insurance what was once a given by every employer was not non existent with prices soaring.. someone asked me what years were the best.. I told them when I made two dollars and hour and at the end of the year if the boss did good he gave everyone a bonus companies had family picnics..( there was a company close to where I live.. huge company all over the world they had an office close by.. the big thing with that place.. they would fire everyone just before christmas.. )
    So yes.. until manufacturing is back and corporate leaders are willing to take a smaller chunk of the profits and start thinking for the welfare of their employees. You will see a more single household. Just because the market and tax structures are designed around single households and no longer around family.
    the down side to this is. I was willing to work day and night to provide for my family. what I see today is because of my sacrifice for them I see what affect that had on the children and my own health. Most men or women are not willing to make that sacrifice.. instead.. head for the social programs.. Now lets consider cuts.. cut one of those programs that our past legislators have designed out of greed and you put a stress on everything.. kind of like lining up dominoes.. just watch them fall..

    • Here is something else to.. When the recessions of the eighties hit the one lone job I had until that point was working us ten hours a week overtime. Coincidentally my car engine blew up it was late fall cold out snow on the. Ground.. I had to walk the twelve miles to work every day. Get up at one shove newspapers bunche up between two pair of jeans. Because I didn’t have winter clothing excep my pea coat. No glove no snow boots. I froze my feet.. Then because of the recession they closed the plan for the winter. I was desperate.. I scraped the fat off the hides of road kill (chewy job I suggest everyone do it once) even that ended at a buck and a half an hour.. There wasn’t any social programs to help. I had to scrape grain off the ground and beat it into a crude gruel.. Two kids no heat in the apartment. We would open the door to let the heat from an unheated hall warm the apartment. The electric was disconnected..
      Then a local farmer asked if I’d help catch the small male rooster in the hen house..Christmas two days away.. Our Christmas tree a branch in an old coffee can. He was going to pay a dollar an hour would I be willing absolutely.. Five hours.. After we were done he said I can give you the money or if you would rather have the chickens and some eggs.. I took the chickens.. Honey fire up the Coleman grill we eat tonight. I was so excited about our bounty.. When I got home.. I rushed in to a warm apartment electricity was on food in all the cupboards boxes of canned goods a couple outfits for each of the kids a receipt for paid up rent..I literally got on my knees and cried.. It was the worst and best Christmas of my life. I remember where I have been and every year I find someone that is going through the same thing its really quite common.
      Just ran into one last week. I can see the look..most don’t.
      Now consider this.. The vast majority of the young married people with children have never experienced any trials.
      Those that experienced the depression from the beginning are now gone. The same way it happened the kids in the roaring twenties those that had experienced the depression of the 1800’s were gone.
      I never worked less than two jobs and because of that experience I was halfway prepared she we lost our income when they cut Medicare payouts by 11 percent.
      I am wondering what will it be like if.. The proposed cuts are implimented. That’s also one thing I like about trump if our congress would only work with him we would see a corporate environment for the common labourer

    • Remember, what came first? The destruction of the family OR government programs designed to destroy the family??? Think about it! All you see has been designed. Those illegals, for over 30 years, have had a safety net that no one in my family going back the 3 generations of their time in America has ever seen, gotten, or experienced and we never will. We are not eligible. The government has declared it’s intentions until Trump. It has codified it’s intentions through executive orders, laws, massive unrestrained immigration, dumbed down education system, lowering of standards, destruction of the value of the dollar, corporations practicing discrimination daily against the citizens in collusion with the government and activist judges and much more. They’ve unleashed the dogs of friction on the country. I predict, one day, maybe 50 to 100 years from now or sooner depending on worst/best case scenarios. A family will be held in the esteemed and treasured way that naturally seeks itself. This current state is an aberration generated by an agenda to destroy the country from within. Read what the Bolshevicks did to the state of marriage in Russia.

  8. When I grew up, I learned that it was illegal/immoral to have sex with anyone unless you were married and then only with your spouse. I also learned that sex in marriage was a given, and that each spouse had to be available for sex with the other, and that you always slept together and touched each other all night long.

    Of course, I learned that is a truly rare marriage, and having tried more than once to acquire such a relationship, I felt cheated and lied to. In a quest for what marriage really was, I ran into a massive pile of definitions that could never be parsed. It seems that whatever entity was responsible for the definition always put itself first. Even Wikipedia has confusing and conflicting definitions.

    In marriage, the three things that used to split couples were sex, money, and in-laws. Today it seems that in many cases, one spousal unit just gets bored and leaves. The primary purpose of marriage IMHO(other than a stable place for kids) is to guarantee the availability of sex and nurturing so that one doesn’t spend the majority of his/her life seeking that. It leaves time to do other productive things in life. Today nobody has any time, and that’s a major reason. Sadly, most of us are seeking, rather than enjoying.

    The benefits of marriage today are minimal. If someone trusts their spouse sufficiently, marriage is not needed. If one doesn’t, marriage will only make things worse.

    Other than tax options, immigration, and inheritance, I see no other reasons for legal marriage in the USA. Sex has dropped out of the equation completely.

    • But aren’t those why mergers happen? That was my point… and for those not tracking, Mike and I could laugh about the immigration angles of “corporate marriage” and the H-1b visa…marriage but the sex with corps is limited to screwing everyone…

  9. George,

    you mentioned in your comment – “congress” = more sex talk

    Congress defined = “coitus; sexual intercourse. the action of coming together”

    commerce defined = sexual intercourse

  10. In a truly free country, the government has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. It is simply a source of revenue and an instrument to reinforce in people’s minds that they are the property of the government. You pay for a license for software, and you pay for a license to put your name on your wife so she becomes your property. You cannot possess an auto without a license, and you need a license to even use roads that you pay for.

    Oh, but you say, “my marriage is not like that.” Well, it is in the eyes of the government you submit to every April 15.

    The income tax is the same kind of instrument. Why should a government collect taxes when they can simply print all the money they want? The government wants to make damn sure that you know they are in charge, and you better submit or they will use violence against you to be sure that you pay your share of what they still call a “voluntary” tax.

    Land of the free, home of the brave, support the troops fighting for your freedom, which carries a price tag of only $600 billion a year. You feeling like you got your money’s worth that $3 trillion spent in Afghanistan?

  11. Funny you should mention. Married 57 years in NY. Moved to NC and am told we must have a certified marriage certificate registered. If in NC and not have such a certificate, we are not married or any other legal name. BUT may live together with absolutely no names attached. NY can not find a registered marriage certificate anywhere. So we have talked and it appears the only need would be filing for spousal social secuirity upon passing of one or the other. Or must get remarried by a “country preacher,’ or someone else.

    Funniest, while taking a recognized IQ test, One question was: “What is a marriage certificate for ?” They would not accept “Money” No other answer was allowed, and of course, the administrator was not allowed to tell me the answer (MENSA, of course.)

    • LOL – I get a kick out of MENSA stories. When asked why he wasn’t a member, a buddy of mine said (years back) “Would I want to belong to a group who’s president [at the time] was a sergeant in the Royal something-or-others?”
      However, the list of other Mensans here is instructive.

  12. George, A reminder. There are many entities that qualify as “persons” in law including corporations, partnerships, etc. But only two qualify as “individuals” Meat bags (you and me) and trusts – contractual beings formed for specific purposes by groups in agreement. A trust can do any lawful thing a meat bag can do. Now read 26 CFR 301.7701.4(b).

Comments are closed.