_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
Joe Exotic posts on instagram that his husband was deported by ICE after years of shilling for Donald Trump.
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
934 points (98.5% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
5805 readers
295 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nah fuck that. The idea that the state needs to validate people's relationships is absurd.
People can do whatever they want with their relationships, but if they want a union recognized by the government and the advantages conferred by that, then yes the state can regulate that
I just like clear terminology. If he’s using wording for a legally sanctioned partnership then I understand it as a legally sanctioned partnership. I don’t entirely care but you don’t get to claim words that mean one thing to mean another thing, although I’ll take obvious slang or satire
Regarding "restrictions":
In at least some jurisdictions, the process of getting married involves "a marriage license", and I think of a license as something that provides a privilege to and imposes an obligation upon someone, and potentially multiple privileges and/or obligations.
A license is "Freedom to deviate deliberately from normally applicable rules or practices (especially in behaviour or speech)", so if there are any "restrictions" then they just apply by default, and people with a marriage license get to ignore some of them (in exchange for having some additional obligations/restrictions).
Exotic didn't say a single word about legal advantages.
No, but he used terminology that implied a legally sanctioned contract. That’s potentially misleading/wrong. It’s lying. But it doesn’t mean anything specific about the state of whatever relationship he may have
Talking about marriage doesn't imply anything about the law, because marriage isn't a legal construct. It's in your heart.
I have a commitment to drive my kid home from college for a weekend with his friends. It’s a personal commitment that I take seriously. It’s in my heart….. but I’m not calling it a contract
I 100% agree with this.
This reminds me of how "civil marriages" started happening in France: https://youtu.be/xD7MJcxQzKU?t=973 https://youtu.be/xD7MJcxQzKU?t=718
Marriage has nothing to do with relationships or love. Never has and never will. Marriage is a contract, whether the terms of that contract is who has power of attorney by default or a mutual defense pact against the Ottoman Empire is up to the betrothed.
Let me provide an example of why this has to be in place: One cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse in court. That protection doesn't extend to boyfriends, fucktoys or high-speed-low-passes. To prevent that system from being abused, you're going to need to have a registry somewhere otherwise every court case is going to be "the prosecution can't call any witnesses because everyone in the English speaking world is my spouse."
Boyfriend, partner, dicksheath, cumdumpster, codpiece, anklegrabber, better half or significant other, these terms have no legal meaning and thus are perfectly free to use. "Husband" "Wife" and "Spouse" mean "we are parties of a certain standardized, legally binding contract."
Ain't nobody should have to snitch to the cops about nothing if they don't want to. Shouldn't require marriage at all.
Also, if marriage isn't about love, then how come you can't marry your sister? I'm not advocating for sister marriage, I'm just pointing out it definitely is about love, and that's why marrying your sister is weird.
I think what they were saying is that “marriage” is a legally defined union between two people. A 12 year old child bride will be married - but I wouldn’t have thought love comes into that kind of horrific union.
There’s plenty of people who are not married but are in love with their partner and there are plenty of married couples where the love died long ago; if it even ever existed.
Well that's wrong. Spouses should love each other. The law shouldn't keep them together if they don't. Abolish legal marriage.
Yeah - a loveless marriage is possibly the saddest place you could ever be. Don’t do it to yourself. (which, admittedly, you seem unlikely to.)
Whilst, yes, abolishing marriage might be a good idea there are certain legal and tax advantages to being married (in some jurisdictions). These would need to be worked out to apply equally to all couples (thrupples, polygamous communes, multi-wife faiths etc.) but wouldn’t be impossible.