It's unfair to deny us the right to marry, and then hold us to marriage dissolution standards. It's unfair. Either give us the right to marry and saddle us with all the legal rights and obligations, or deny it to us and let us just be single people for all purposes.

I don't know the law in Florida, but while my sympathies are with the dumped girlfriend, I say as far as legal responsibilities go, they should go no farther than our legal rights. And if you don't like the outcome, then make gay marriage legal!

Obama compares our relationships to incest and pedophilia, Gov. Sanford (one of the main opponents of gay marriage) secretly flies to Brazil for an affair, the catholic church spent over $1 million to enshrine discrimination into the state constitution......so you write a column about a retired tennis star ????

Evidently you have some issues with Martina but geez, how about we get the equal right to marry first, then you can talk about how much growing up we have to do.

Let me guess, your a "fierce supporter" of gays rights just like Obama?

A long time before gay marriage was legalized in Canada, common law rights began applying to same sex couples in many jurisdictions. For at least a decade prior to legalization, if not longer provinces recognized that asset dissolution in the even of a common law relationship breakup should be the same for the same for all romantically involved couples - straight or gay.

These are the kind of steps that may be taken years before the court recognizes formal marriage and I think go a long way to providing a context of social acceptance and norms around relationship standards for everyone.

If Martina doesn't want to share with her spouse, who I'm assuming did not work and traveled with her/supported her emotionally instead - then she should have written up a prenuptial agreement that said so. She's a rich woman with a lawyer or two I'm sure - it's not the first time she has gone to court over this exact issue. I don't agree that first comes formal marriage and then comes the morality of taking care of someone you've loved in the event a relationship doesn't work out. We should all treat each other with the same standard of decency should a marriage dissolve, no matter what the state says about our right to stand in church and declare it.

The fact is gay or straight there are lots of assholes in the world who will go out of their way to avoid certain responsibilities involving money. From the sounds of this story Martina is one of them, and it's not at all an issue of whether gay marriage is legal or not. Whether the courts find her owing her partner is another matter altogether - I suspect they won't because that would legitimize same sex unions more than any judge in the US would want to.

How dare you lecture us about not respecting marriage when only a couple of states just recently gave us the equal right to get married.

But that's been the same criticism for years......gays are "bad" and "immoral" because we don't stay in monogamous relationships yet we are forbidden to get married.

I don't understand why an 8 year relationship entitles the ex to half of Martina's millions. I'm assuming the ex is an able-bodied adult. If she is no longer welcome in Martina's four houses, she should get a job and lease her own apartment.

If the ex contributed to the couple's wealth (beyond "emotional support") and helped to pay for the houses, she should absolutely walk away with that money -- and even if she didn't, a small amount of money would be nice since Martina can afford it. But the whole "I spent your money when we were a couple, so you must support me now" business is silly.

Spousal support started a long time ago, when women stayed at home and depended on their husbands for financial support. These days, both men and women should be able to support themselves regardless of their relationship status -- especially when they don't have any children.

Did this couple have the option of a prenuptial agreement? If it was not an option, you really can't expect Martina to give up her money in the name of gay rights... and if it was an option, I hope Martina has learned her lesson.

This is one reason I am in no rush to get gay-married.

A woman in her 30s had been a companion to a terminally ill older man whom, she claimed, had told her she would always be provided for. Well, after he kicked the bucket the will stated whoever cared for his aging dog would be kept in the style to which the pooch was accustomed, but after Fido died his estate would go to an animal shelter.

The letters to the ed were priceless, "Seems he knew who is best friend was," "Lady, use what he left you to get professionally trained rather than expecting to live off his money in great comfort for the rest of your life."

Same-sex unions should be held to the same standard as heterosexual marriages at "cash out" time. In California, property settlement rules are based on the length of the union. Those which lasted less than ten years would probably net the dependent party spousal support of the same duration.

The right of that party not to suffer a drop in standard of living makes break-ups costly for the wealthy. It's not a matter of whether someone could live off a million a month, most of us could. But, if you're accustomed to greater comfort including things like travel via private jet, your partner is obligated to provide it.

The LGBT community in the US has been screwed over by the law for years. And it looks like we'll continue to be screwed for years into the future. What we, as a community, need to learn is that we can and should treat each other better than the law treats us. We can and should treat each other with respect and integrity. Just because we don't currently have a universal right to marry doesn't mean that we should lower our morals and our principles to the level of our oppressors.