In one reply to the DOMA rulings, someone noted that the judge was wrong to say that there were no classes between "persons," pointing to corporations. But, the quote, and the article in question quotes correctly to show this, concerns "citizens." Corporations don't have federal constitutional rights as citizens, except for purposes of diversity in court. But, we can address the wider point.*
As to corporations, corporate personhood has roots in the Middle Ages, it recognized that for legal purposes, recognizing them as persons for "some" purposes has various benefits. Thus, a national corporation can work out its contracts and so forth in each state courts as one entity, for instance, or the NYT can defend its press rights as one entity.
It is not "personhood" of corporations, again of a special type with only limited rights, that caused problems, but the lack of proper regulation as large business corporations expanded their economic powers. I don't know if many fear small corporations or even non-profits (though many don't like their causes), which are what most 'corporate persons' are.
Without violating any rights, corporations can be regulated and restricted; corporations, for instance, can only be allowed to perform limited duties, have short life spans, have high taxes, be required to inform and get the consent of stockholders before doing things like supporting a candidate via an ad, be subject to lots of regulations that restricts its power or even not be chartered if deemed dangerous to the public good.
Regulation is much more likely than doing away with them; and if we do away with them without properly regulating them, the BPs of the world will continue to be dangerous, since their power will remain in lots of ways, just as there are various dangerous human people who are not restrained.
I can definitely respect those who muckrake against corporate power, but these attacks against corporate personhood to me seem pretty misguided. It is not really the way to address what they are worried about in most cases, while also not likely to happen any time soon.
---
* The whole quote, cited in this context in Romer v. Evans, is worth repeating:
The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.
Not being "citizens," corporations can be put in another class, again, having limited rights ... some rhetoric notwithstanding.