this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
755 points (98.8% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

4642 readers
1253 users here now

Rules:

Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Joe Exotic posts on instagram that his husband was deported by ICE after years of shilling for Donald Trump.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] CarbonBasedNPU@lemm.ee 1 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

What do you mean by that? Because there are some cases I agree but a lot of the current restrictions are silly.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

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

[–] outbakes9510@piefed.social 0 points 12 hours ago

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).

[–] OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Exotic didn't say a single word about legal advantages.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Talking about marriage doesn't imply anything about the law, because marriage isn't a legal construct. It's in your heart.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

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