The big winners
However you feel about gay marriage, you have to admit that in the long run it's going to bestow major economic benefits on one group:
Lawyers!
First, we'll have a year or two of litigation about the legitimacy of the concept, the wording of the ballot measures -- heck, maybe even a hanging-chad controversy, if the lawyers are lucky.
And then, after gay marriage is pronounced legal (which I predict it will be), a new specialty area for lawyers will emerge:
Gay divorce!
Granted, there previously were attorneys who specialize in the legal affairs of same-sex domestic partners. But their clientele was relatively small. Once you get married, the chances are much greater that you'll need a lawyer -- probably two lawyers -- to untie the knot.
As the kids say on the McDonald's ads, I'm lovin' it.
| Posted at 1:59 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (16)
I hope that "Bogdanski's Maxim" gets elevated to the status that Murphy's and Godwin's Laws enjoy.
Perhaps we can reword it just a tad, to make it a little less specific.
"For any hot-button social issue, the only group who will enjoy long-term economic benefits are the lawyers."
Whaddaya think?
Posted by mtpolitics@mtpolitics.net | March 3, 2004 2:14 PM
I am trying to think of a witty riposte to your post(s), but the dollar signs I keep imagining are blocking everything else out of my mind.
Posted by Wm | March 3, 2004 2:34 PM
It's nice to see someone taking an extremely pragmatic view of the situation. It's gonna be a bloodbath of litigation, and the people who thrive in that kind of environment tend to be the blood-sucking lawyers (not very flattering perhaps, but probably true). How many months until gradution?
Posted by Zach | March 3, 2004 2:43 PM
Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people.
Posted by Dave | March 3, 2004 4:51 PM
Jack,
WWP actually thought of this also, but [for obvious, politic reasons] decided it best not to say anything under his own name.
It sounded damn good coming from you.
Hehehehe.
-WWP
PS: Think the Multnomah County policy stands a chance of court scrutiny? WWP has his doubts...
Posted by Worldwide Pablo | March 3, 2004 5:28 PM
Dave,
That's one of WWP's favorite lines. He chuckled [mightily] at seeing in print from another source.
You're absolutely correct, of course...but try telling that to the so-called "tort reformers."
Grrrrrrrr.
--WWP
Posted by Worldwide Pablo | March 3, 2004 5:30 PM
WWP: I've read Agnes Sowle's opinion. It's thin, to say the least. You hit the nail on the head (as usual) when you said, right result, bad process. Who knows what will happen in court?
Another blue note is how the timing of forcing the issue feeds into the Bush agenda. I wish Lisa and Diane had woken up to their profound constitutional responsibilities around, say, Nov. 10.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 3, 2004 5:34 PM
Don't think they woulda waited to do it in November, because
A. They wouldn't have had the momentum from San Fransisco and New York. If gay marriages across the nation had stopped at those two (three if you want to count N.M, but I don't) to start again in November seemingly randomly would have been EXtremely difficult and, shall I say, ballsy; I don't think those two have the cahones to start it up.
And B. because if gay marriage does indeed spread like wildfire through the civil courts of the land, then Portland would have just been another one to go along with the ride much later than the rest; we wouldn't have been at the forefront and in the media.
All of us have our own place in movement and process and I have no bones with Lisa and Diane to go with what works for them- not starting the fire, but willing to step up to pass the torch early in the game.
Posted by pdxkona | March 3, 2004 6:33 PM
A "blue note," indeed. WWP is working up a post on that.
Posted by Worldwide Pablo | March 3, 2004 6:34 PM
Yep. Trust me, the Bushies love this as much as the civil rights activists.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 3, 2004 7:30 PM
Speaking of gay divorce, did anyone see Rosie O' Donnell's partner? Talk about the Billy Joel syndrome. Do you think this woman would be with Rosie if she wasn't loaded ? Even though we can all be happy that Rosie is in love, betcha she has an airtight pre-nuptial agreement in place.
Everybody has a right to be happy, but it seems to me that marrige is an institution between a man and a woman. It seems that gay people have a need to feel "normal", which in many ways is sad. A piece of paper from a publicity-hungry mayor of Podunk USA seems to be an odd affirmation of normalcy.I'm afraid that those who have a need to feel accepted and normal are taking a confrontational, "in-your-face",impatient approach which will ultimately hurt their cause.
Posted by brother gary | March 4, 2004 5:21 AM
All right, that's one of the funniest blogs I've read in a while. Good man.
Posted by Jeff | March 4, 2004 8:38 AM
And remember, that's tax dollars going for at least part of the cost of litigation--the Attorney General's office and the county attorney's office.
Reminds me of the PERS litigation. It's all my tax dollars going to lawyers instead of retirees!
Posted by Kris Hasson-Jones | March 4, 2004 10:29 AM
Lionel Richie's soon-to-be-ex-wife is seeking $300,000 a month in spousal support from the pop star.
How much are the laywers getting paid?
Posted by Yi Hu | March 4, 2004 8:40 PM
Actually, I think you are missing the first business winners in regard to gay marriage -- those who will benefit from breakups. I suspect that gay relationships are biting the dust right and left in SF, Mass., and now Portland. A lot of couples must be realizing only one of them wants to get married. So, apartment owners, moving companies and utilities may be getting a boost.
(Yi, not as much as people think.)
Posted by Mac Diva | March 8, 2004 10:15 PM
$$$!!! But to get some of this lucre, I'd have to go into Family Law. Yuck!
Posted by Gordo | March 9, 2004 8:57 AM