_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
538 points (99.1% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
4648 readers
847 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 [email protected] (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
I doubt that Joe Exotic has been married at any time in 2025
It seems they were not married as of 1st November 2024
Fine, but they can refer to each other as husbands if they like
Well, yeah, but I believe the implication is that if they were legally married then Exotic's husband should be a US citizen and shouldn't have been deported.
No? You can marry foreign nationals in the US I'd hope
I think that even if they were legally married, there are instances where they can still be deported. If the person went into or stayed in America "illegally", they can be deported regardless of marriage status.
That's bullshit. The government shouldn't be deporting people for refusing to participate in their system of regulating love. Just let people live where they want.
Note that might have legal consequences: if they expressed that in a court session it might be considered perjury or contempt of court. In general, people don't like being mislead, so using sentences that are easy to misinterpret when you could have used a more straightforward sentence will probably lead to trouble.
Some consequences of "represent[ing] to others that the parties are married" can be considered quite negative: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-home-or-kids-together-but-couple-still-spouses-appeal-court-rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States
You know what? No. "Husband" "Wife" and "Spouse" have a legal meaning that has ramifications in tax and contract law, so I can only assume (especially from someone of his ethical caliber) that using such language is attempted fraud.
Abolish legal marriage!
It's an Instagram post.
Nah fuck that. The idea that the state needs to validate people's relationships is absurd.
I 100% agree with this.
This reminds me of how "civil marriages" started happening in France: https://youtu.be/xD7MJcxQzKU?si=gRfdgFoeRvDEQ658&t=973 https://youtu.be/xD7MJcxQzKU?si=32-fXp928SdiGq0e&t=718
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
Exotic didn't say a single word about legal advantages.
What do you mean by that? Because there are some cases I agree but a lot of the current restrictions are silly.
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).
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.
Tbf, some of us agree with that but about the marriage institution being upheld by a polygamous species in denial. 😅
lol okay word police.
I’m sure this keeps you up at night tossing and turning that someone used the word husband when it wasn’t technically correct under the strict definition of ThE lEgAl SyStEm
Okay so, other than "husband" and "woman" are there any other words the left don't want to allow defining? How long is this list going to get?
Hello I'm the left's official spokesperson and I think I can clear up this confusion.
A woman is someone who wants to be a woman.
A husband is someone who wants to be a husband and has consent from the person they're a husband of.
Both of these words are identities, and letting people be who they want to be when it doesn't affect other people is one of the values of the left. So you can go ahead and extend this reasoning to all personal identities that don't harm others, and I think that answers your question.
“The left”
I’m just some dude.
Marriage isn't a legal construct. The government doesn't have the right to own people's relationships. They can say they do, it doesn't make it true.
Sorry guys, I agree with this take. The tricky part is the legal stuff tied to "single" or "married", etc but we shouldn't have distinguished based on that anyway.
Perhaps they weren't legally married but had some kinda tiger ceremony followed by a sweaty handshake..