I have to question the lack of judgment and sophistication of both parties in this dispute. Apparently, it was common knowledge that Navratilova had at least two very public and acrimonious breakups prior to this latest one. Navratilova is a slow learner unless she enjoys legal battles, bad press, and paying lawyers. The latest lover is apparently rather naive that Navratilova would not play the same hardball with her as with previous lovers or wives whichever you prefer.

It makes no difference whether the parties are gay or straight if individuals can't look past the romance and deal with the hard realities of individual behavior and personal history they walk blindly into such situations. Lawyers really appreciate such short-sightedness. The behavior of such individuals makes them rich.

There are no laws that can prevent these situations. It isn't a gay or straight issue. Without the foolishness of the rich and famous there would be no grocery store tabloids, celebrity TV, and lawyers might have to find something useful to do with their time.

I read the article and figured, geez how could you not agree with what Bayard says. I guess i just don't understand some of the letters assaulting not only the article but Bayard himself as well. The how dare you's and the you have no right to's.

Is the anger (that has been mistakenly directed at the writer) aimed at the states that have yet to grant gays the right have their marriage recognized as "legal" and that castigating Ms Navratilova for not 'toeing the line' when it comes to her obligations to her ex wives is tantamount to heresy? I don't know, i can easily get lost in that kind of logic. To me, the belief that your marriage should be honoured by the state really does start by you honouring that marriage as well. I don't know Martina personally and never will, but on the surface of it, it does sound like she want it both ways.

When same-sex marriage first began in Massachusetts five years ago I was apprehensive that many gay couples would rush into it unthinkingly for the reason Louis Bayard suggests - we're not conditioned to the idea that government really takes our relationships seriously. Fortunately, that didn't happen. There was no subsequent flood of gay divorces (much to the chagrin of the right, no doubt). So I'm not sure Martina Navratilova is representative of anything but herself.

Navratilova has the legal rights here. She was NOT married legally to Toni Layton and BOTH of them knew this and know it now. As such, Toni took her chances...period.

Is it fair? Well both knew they weren't legally bonded and both knew they were taking their chances the other would not leave...so as far as I'm concerned, everything is above board and fully fair.

Alimony or palimony or galimony, it's the same idea. The only time anybody should be granted it is if they were instrumental in creating the wealth they are dividing. For example, if a spouse works to put their partner through med school then they should benefit from the advantage that their partner gets from that education. If a spouse needs money to raise children, they get child support. If a spouse was instrumental in establishing their partners career, they get a portion of the reward. I don't think anybody could claim that Natravilova had any help getting where she is. Her former partners should be grateful for what they were given and move on.

There was no subsequent flood of gay divorces (much to the chagrin of the right, no doubt).

Unfortunately, those numbers might be impossible to track because some gays who were married in MA or Canada simply moved to another state and now pretend they aren't really married because their new state doesn't recognize their marriage. That's the same issue as this case -- wanting it both ways.

Well, we the voters of Florida recently approved a constitutional amendment to the effect that marriage is only for mixed doubles.

But even if this couple were legally married in Florida, it is not a common property state like California, and Ms. Navratilova's gal pal would only be entitled to what she had contributed to the marriage, plus perhaps something for loss of other earnings, pension rights, health insurance, whatever.

What we don't know is if she was already paid a salary or stipend for personal services rendered to Ms. Navratilova. She may have been on her hangers-on payroll.

I assume that there are no children of this "marriage", so no child support.

If she had been wise, she would have requested something of value like a comfortable home as a personal gift just in case the relationship ever went sour, which was always on the cards.

Perhaps some other tennis player can use her service?

Someone who has a talent for satisfying another person who is wealthy but not very physically attractive for several years obviously has valuable skills that must be in demand.

In theory, I agree with Mr. Bayard, but...

If we're really truly going to be gender-blind here, then what I would say to anyone getting involved with Ms. Navratilova is this:

"Girl, WTF were you thinking?"

Navratilova is a cad, a dog, a scoundrel...and people get involved with her expecting to be treated well?

Please.

Anyone who marries Navratilova and then claims she couldn't see THIS train coming at her...well, she's got bigger problems than being done wrong by "her."

The late Marvin Mitchelson developed the case law on palimony. A right to palimony depends on the nature of the relationship regardless of orientation. Before castigating Navratilova, it would be worth seeing just what the facts of this case, rather than the allegations, are.

On a personal level, I should have listened to my mother and gone to law school. There is one certainty about same sex marriage: When it becomes law, there will be more work for divorce lawyers.

Who says ANYONE deserves alimony? Any person, male or female, who subjugates themselves to their partner to the extent that they are wholly dependent on them financially deserves nothing when they get dumped. Able bodied adults in this day and age should work for money, not marry for money, gay or straight.

This is exactly where my ambivalence to the whole gay marriage thing comes in. As a lesbian, the double standard on legally recognized unions galls me. It IS a civil rights issue. As a feminist, I find the entire institution of marriage archaic and dumb. Women are not chattel, we do not 'deserve' a certain standard of living just because we once had a spouse who provided such. If there were children involved and we were talking child support, then it would be a different matter.

Navratilova obviously has a good divorce lawyer - a total shark who doesn't give a damn what argument he makes as long as it protects his client's assets. That his job! Queers need to take a long hard look at the institution so many of us are dying to be a part of. Whatever happened to changing the world, rather than merely joining in with the screwed up one we've already got?