My father remarried a lawyer that used to be specialised in divorces for 9 years, until she asked to change spec due stress.
What I found interesting was her perspective on it because apparently she did start as a "pro women" lawyer and slowly switched to "pro men" in court cases until she couldn't take it anymore, and that while she hated a lot of men that had abused her during ehr careers, from bosses to coworkers, she said most people dragging her down were women.
Anyway, she told us stories about divorces and in her experience, gays have the funniest, most melodrammatic ones, with a surprising amount of physical abuse but not too harsh, as they'd either keep it low (masochist) or would break up before it gets too bad.
Lesbians were the worst ones, by a long shot, she says. They had the highest % of physical and psychological abuse among couples. Of course, the actual number of absue cases would be great with straight couples, but where around 1 out of every 5 (I think) straight couples had some form of abuse, more than half of lesbians had it. Women did not see physical violence as that, violence, most would claim that slapping, pulling hair or biting were part of the discussion and it's "normal" to have that with someone else. A big problem too was that the law was not (still isn't) prepared to deal with it. Men are easy, law does nto care, just make the man pay or, in gay's cases, punish the biggest offender. But with women? hard when both sides can pull off the "muh rights" card. So here, the court did something really shitty, where during one of the breaks, the lawyers, prosecution and judge get together to discuss and assign one of the women as "the man", and the court will see and threat it as such when possible for the rest of the court case. In the case of extreme physical absue this was actually possible to make from a law perspective and judge them as man, similar to judging minors as adults.