Try as I might to save our marriage, there was no stopping my husband. Our divorce was not settled in mediation or with lawyers. No, it went all the way to trial. My husband wanted primary custody of our children. His entire case can be summed up in one sentence: “I am gay, and I deserve my rights.” It worked: the judge gave him practically everything he wanted. At one point, he even told my husband, “If you had asked for more, I would have given it to you.”
I truly believe that judge was legislating from the bench, disregarding the facts of our particular case and simply using us—using our children— to help influence future cases. In our society, LGBT citizens are seen as marginalized victims who must be protected at all costs, even if it means stripping rights from others. By ignoring the injustice committed against me and my children, the judge seemed to think that he was correcting a larger injustice.
This strikes me as a plausible counter-offensive if one’s wife were, heaven forbid, trying to cash out the value of the marriage. “Your honor, my wife wants out because she’s closed-minded about sharing me with my boyfriends.” This may circumvent the usual farce of a “for me, not for thee” trial where rules only apply to the less victimized party, because being gay still yields better victim points than being a woman. It puts the wife in the unusual predicament of proving that you’re making it up, or proving that she never thought you were until now, or that she isn’t closed-minded about it (depending on where in the proceedings you introduce the new “fact”).
Think about it: how do you prove a person isn’t gay? Plus, she might come to believe it herself, since she clearly isn’t been attracted to you. That seems to be how their brains work, anyway. Minus money or minus feelbad? Feelbad, obviously.
That said, it would be fun to tally up the various victimhood coefficients wrt income, justice outcomes, media over-representation, etc. I’m sure somebody’s already done so, but I haven’t seen it yet.