this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
683 points (98.9% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

4642 readers
1074 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
[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 18 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

Nah fuck that. The idea that the state needs to validate people's relationships is absurd.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

I 100% agree with this.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 10 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

[–] OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com 1 points 8 hours ago

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

[–] CarbonBasedNPU@lemm.ee 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] outbakes9510@piefed.social 0 points 9 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).

[–] outbakes9510@piefed.social 1 points 8 hours ago

This reminds me of how "civil marriages" started happening in France: https://youtu.be/xD7MJcxQzKU?t=973 https://youtu.be/xD7MJcxQzKU?t=718

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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."

[–] OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

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.