The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Gay marriage: lawyer cash cow

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding gay marriage in recent years. For my part, I wish to see marriage limited to between a man and a woman. Others are free of course to attempt to change the laws of the country despite my wishes. I am free also to urge lawmakers to refrain from changing the law. Legal unions not defined as marriage may be a viable compromise. My complaint, of course, was the power grab by the courts in some states by departing from interpretation of the law to creating law via judicial ruling. Judicial activism grants one branch of government more power than the other two combined.

As for the push to legalize gay marriage, I think there is more than the wishes of the gay community in mind. I have held for a long time that the push for gay marriage by judges may have more to do with money than gay rights. The Boston Globe reports that the first gay couple in Massachusetts have filed for divorce after being married for two years. If gay marriages have the same track record as heterosexual couples, we can expect 50% of these marriages to lead to divorce. That represents quite a cash cow for lawyers servicing all those divorces. What better motive for judges, who are after all lawyers, to push for more gay marriage.

Lawyers and the media probably are neck and neck for being the most influential group in US policy. By keeping their personal coffers filled and overflowing, lawyers keep their power perch with the added bonus of lawmakers and judges arising from their midst. As is so often said: follow the money.


  • At 1:41 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    That article states that the couple have not yet filed for divorce.

  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    The couple in question are only a reference to my point that there will be divorce among gay marriages just like heterosexual marriages. Currently, lawyers are making zero from gay divorce. When all 50 states are allowing gay marriage, gay divorce will be a multi-billion dollar cash cow.

    My point does nothing to argue the point for or against, it simply points out that there is a strong incentive for some to push for it.

  • At 9:44 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Yes, I understand that but I think that is completely wrong. Gay marriage is the next natural progression in the evolution of marriage, and it's stupid to even suggest that it's a sinister judicial/lawyer plot to extract money from gay divorce.

    You're clasping at straws with that post. I'm sorry to be blunt but I think you may have to concede that gay marriage is inevitable, whether you like it or not.

  • At 10:36 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Actually my post was a point of interest rather than advocating anything either way. I think with many aspects of politics, there are alternate incentives. I was merely pointing out that this is one of them. Abortion is another that has become a very lucritive industry.

    I am not claiming it is a sinister plot either. My point is that it is not always the validity of the cause that is the only driving force. After all don't liberals claim that some use issues like flag burning to pull along the stupid masses by the nose? I wish they could stop flag burning, nor am I one of the dumb masses that can't think for myself. I do think some try to use it as a tool to some degree.

    So basically I am not grasping at anything. I am simply making an observation. Sometimes I simply like to write things that get people to think.

  • At 11:25 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Fair enough.

    But the point about gay marriage being a 'lawyer cash cow' is no more valid than me saying that the Iraq War is a weapons manufacturer cash cow.

    Sorry to draw that painful analogy, but I really think you're applying selective logic to these things.

  • At 7:32 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    he Iraq War is a weapons manufacturer cash cow

    There are those that did and it is a valid point. Wars are cash cows for some so it is important to keep that in mind when one suggests going to war. All angles should be observed.

    I don't think huge defense contracts were the reason we went to war, but since a lot of money is flowing it can be valid to at least question.

  • At 5:06 AM, Blogger Malott said…

    I can be so cynical as to believe that lawyers see dollar signs when they consider an America with legalized gay marriage. Whatever the failure rate is for heterosexuals, it would be much higher for gays.

    I don't think gays are interested in marriage for any other reason than that it would aid their agenda of making their lifestyle more legitimate and accepted.

  • At 8:21 PM, Blogger FKAB said…


    I don't presume to speak for the entire homosexual species (we're more savage and less hygenic than the hetero's) but I would love to be allowed to marry whomever I choose. It's a right that you have, but I don't. Is it unfair of me, therefore, to expect that this discrimination be removed from the law? Or do I have to prove to you that I really am gay and I really do want to get married?

  • At 10:18 PM, Anonymous r2w said…


    Please, don't do anything to try to prove you're gay! I can't imagine how you might do that on this blog, but I don't want to see it. As far as discrimination goes, marriage is, and throughout history has been, between a man and a woman. It's not discriminatory to say that two men can't get married when, until recently, that has never come into question.

  • At 11:13 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Thanks r2w. I forgot that gays always have been, and forever will be, second class citizens.

    Thanks for reminding me.

  • At 1:21 PM, Anonymous r2w said…


    Second class citizens? I didn't say anything about gays not being allowed to eat at the same restaurants, or drink from the same fountains, or attend the same public schools, or run for the same offices as heterosexuals. I simply stated that marriage has always been understood to be a union between man and woman.

  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…


    I'm not allowed to marry whomever I choose either.

    I'm only allowed to marry (a) a man--human, (b) one who isn't already married (c) only one man, (d) one who isn't related to me closer than a second cousin (or is that a first cousin once removed? I can never remember).

    And that's just the legal stuff. Add religious requirements and it's a wonder I can find anybody. No, wait! I haven't found anybody in the last ten years.

    So you're not the only one with restrictions. You can marry any one unrelated (or distantly related), unmarried woman you want to. That you don't want to is not the fault of the institution of marriage.

  • At 8:21 PM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…


    It sure gets quiet when the sun is down where you're at.

    The sun does go down at night in Australia, right?

  • At 11:15 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  • At 6:00 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    I deleted that last post because I realised that the words would be lost on you guys. Basically what I was trying to say is that marriage is an inalienable right that should be extended to all people regardless of sexual orientation.

    I don't expect you guys to accept or understand my perspective on the matter, so I won't bother arguing the point any further.

  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger Mojo_Risin said…

    I guess you can also say that gay marriage would be quite the incentive for religious officials, as well, since they'll be able to collect a lot of honoraria for performing gay wedding ceremonies.

    It would also be the money-maker for wedding planners, florists, caterers, hall owners, limo services, DJs, suit- and dress-makers, and also government agencies who will get the little bits of cash for their marriage licenses.

    Oh, and it will also benefit the couples themselves, who will be able to get in on the health and life insurance rackets, and give them the legal rights that hetero couples have when they find someone they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

    And maybe the U.S. would benefit, as well, since gay marriage will provide for stable families to be formed (at least, as stable as hetero families are with a 50% divorce rate). And as the "family values" crowd will tell you, the family is the bedrock of our civilization (though I personally think that "family" is better defines as the the whole group of people with whom you most identify, including friends and blood relations). And statistics generally point toward the idea that gay couples who have children have at least as stable a family life, if not more stable, as hetero married couples.

    A lot of people would benefit from legalizing gay marriage.

    I guess the only financial disincentive would be reduced U.S. tax revenue, since gay-married couples would also be able to reduce their tax burden by getting in on the same tax breaks as het-married couples; however, that would be outweighed by the realized financial gains mentioned above.

    Generally, when people bring up ideas like "the push for gay marriage is part of a larger, more nefarious, agenda by a) lawyers, b) anarchists, or c) The Priory of Zion (just kidding), they are generally forgetting that those are red herrings designed to redirect the debate to side issues. The real people behind the gay marriage push are gay people themselves, who just want to be able to have the same rights other couples have when they fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other. These are just regular people without a larger agenda.

  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Well said mojo. My hat goes off to you.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home