Is Gay Marriage a Social Issue or Just Another Money Grab

Is Gay Marriage a Social Issue or Just Another Money Grab

As a Libertarian, I think the notion that homosexual marriage is somehow a civil liberty is wrong. Marriage has never been originated by the state, to begin with, and as such is not a “civil liberty”. For people to even put the question to government, is ignorant in the first place.

What the “gay” [which I don’t even believe is a real distinction] people want is special dispensation to force private businesses to give them “rights” over an above their own self / business interests, i.e. insurance companies to be forced to throw out actuarial charts, documenting observable behavioral changes in humans that marry and have children, versus those that don’t and therefore are at lower risk for car accidents etc.

In the end this is not about a question of simply declaring a universal love for someone, it is about a lobby to make government force private business to do something, for money.

Until someone with some sense sheds light on this entire farce, everyone will be still debating this like it is some legitimate social issue, instead of the money issue it really is.

It is underhanded in the most vile sense of the word. Couch a money issue, inside of a social issue, with a heavy dose of guilt issues. It’s like the homosexual version of Inception.

For the very people talking about freedom, they are trying to force other “people” [businesses] to have their freedoms taken away.

This has never been about a civil liberty. In fact the entire debate is based on a blatant lie. Several national studies, recently conducted in the last year, found that only 15% of the entire “gay” population is even in a long term, committed relationship. So where is this outcry for legitimizing a “gay” relationship coming from? Certainly not the 85% who have no standing to even bring up the issue in a court of law, nor be redressed before congress. In fact that whole notion that there are these massive numbers of homosexuals out there is false also. The homosexual population is a mere 3%: 2% male and 1% female.

However, as we have seen, the best available data supports a lower estimate of 2.5 percent for male homosexuals and 1.4 percent for lesbians.

Again, this is about money, not civil rights; not civil liberties nor freedom. Almost no one in the national media even understands the ramifications of the issue, money.

Charts on Relationships

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
Source: Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.



In April 2000, the governor of the state of Vermont signed a law instituting civil unions for homosexuals. The bill conferred 300 privileges and rights enjoyed by married couples upon same-sex partners who register their relationship with the town clerk and have their union solemnized by a member of the clergy or the justice of the peace.

Estimating the homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont: The number of homosexuals and lesbians in the state of Vermont may be estimated based on national studies. Contrary to the widely promulgated but inaccurate claims that up to ten percent of the population is homosexual, research indicates that homosexuals comprise one to three percent of the population. For example, a recent study in Demography relying upon three large data sets–the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census–estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population to be 2.5 percent and the number of exclusive lesbians to be 1.4 percent.[21]

According to the 2000 Census, the adult population of Vermont is 461,304.[22] Based on theDemography study, a reasonable estimate of the number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont would be approximately 5,600 (2.5 percent of the adult male population) for male homosexuals, and approximately 3,300 (1.4 percent of the adult female population) for lesbians, for a total of approximately 8,900 homosexuals and lesbians. [Note: these are only rough approximations for purposes of statistical comparison.]

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions: USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23] This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions.

By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.[24]

Sources:U.S. Census Bureau, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, 2; Black, “Demographics,” 141; U.S. Census Bureau Census 2000 Summary File 1; Bayles, “Vermont’s Gay Civil Unions,” 1; Census 2000 Special Reports, 4; Shane, “Many Swedes Say ‘I Don’t,'” 1; “ORL Backgrounder,” 1.
*Sources:Black, “Demographics,” 141; Census 2000 Special Reports, 4.

Finally, the entire issue of “gay” marriage is set on a backdrop of discrimination. Of course discrimination cannot be legislated away. But, what is telling is that one cannot discern off hand if someone is “gay” just by looking at them, outside of some blatant indication. That being said, the alleged discrimination that is reported might not be discrimination at all. What’s more, one would expect there to be reports of wide-spread discrimination, if one were to pay attention to the “gay” lobby.

Once again the DATA does not support this notion of widespread discrimination.

Women(%) Men(%)
Employment benefits 58 40
Taxes 47 37
Insurance 46 34
Membership 20 11
Credit/banking 15 10
Employment 14 13
Housing 11 11
Hotels 6 6
Hospital visitation 6 2
Adoption 5 2
Foster care 3 2
Other 7 4
None/none indicated 23 34

What is telling is that the most talked about discrimination in the entire “gay” marriage issue is about Hospital visitation. However, as the DATA shows, only 2% of “gay” couples encountered any discrimination in Hospital visitation. The highest point of discrimination reported was among Employment benefits. However, with a casual glance at the prior data, one finds that most “gay” couples change partners within one year. Is it discriminatory for companies to rightly deny benefits to an ever changing partner of a “gay” employee. Is it discriminatory to deny insurance benefits to an employee that always changes partners on a yearly basis. This   is clearly supported by the DATA: a staggering 42% of all “gay” relationships do not see a 3rd year and a huge 71% never see a 7th year.

So do insurance companies, which base a majority of their coverage decisions based on regular human behavioral patterns, have a business right to deny coverage of an ever changing partner? Can an insurance company cover a married employee when all DATA points to a 57% chance that the employee will remain married for at least 15 years or a 50% chance he will remain married for more than 20 years? Depending on the job, 20 years of continuous employment can qualify an employee for retirement. It is then reasonable for an insurance company to agree to cover an employee in a group where 20 years of a continuous partner is assured, versus an employee in a group where not even 1 year of a continuous partner is assured.


Taking all religious talk out of the conversation, the issue of “gay” marriage is not about any social civil liberty that is being denied. It is about money. The points that are being made by the “gay” lobby is not supported by any DATA available today, in fact all DATA points against the very issues brought up by the “gay” lobby: a high demand for “gay” marriage; massive discrimination; a high demand for same-sex child rearing. At less than 2% in most instances, there is no high demand for the issue.

What the DATA does show is that:

  • only 3% of the population is “gay”
  • 42% of the “gay” population do not have a relationship that lasts longer than 3 years
  • 85% of the “gay” population do not have relationships that last more than 10 years
  • a staggering 96% of all “gay” relationships are not monogamous
  • of those that have a “gay” relationship, only 22% even live together
  • of those living together in a “gay” relationship, less than 1% actually live with children
  • the above statistic is misleading because only 8% of the 22% actually have children living with them, so saying less than 1% of “gay” households live with children actually saying less than 1% of 1% of the gay population –  66,225 out of 4,040,000.
One could easily say, there is no proof of a demand for “gay” marriage; no proof of a demand for “gay” parenting; and no proof of a  demand for less discrimination against “gay” couples.

Once again, this seems like a very small group of individuals are making a money grab and putting it in a very emotional issue. This is a simple repeat of what we now all see happening on wall street, congress and in the banking industry. Make the people emotional. Divide them on a moral ground. Pass legislation. Steal profits from the U.S. tax payer.

Please visit my legal website: Las Vegas DUI Lawyer
See me on YouTube: Seattle Cop Punches Black Teenage Girl


Published by


Ex law school student. I was kicked out for revealing I had a heart actually beating inside. I used to be in a modern dance company. I'm working on my 7 miracles to be proclaimed a saint by the pope. #1 is really hard, but once i get over that hump the other 6 will be a cinch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s