However, I seriously doubt that any heterosexual married couple would have that sort of divorce settlement. After 8 years? What state do you live in? Even in community property states, the spouse is only entitled usually to make a claim based on the income during the years they were married. If Martina earned the bulk of her fortune before the marriage started, she gets to keep that.

I think the assumption here is that a heterosexual dependent wife would get half of the assets, and that just isn't true. A friend of mine got dumped by her husband (he immediately married his secretary) after 20 years of marriage and 3 children, one seriously handicapped. She had stayed home most of the marriage because the handicapped child needed so much care. They married in college, and neither brought any money in.

She got:

All the kids.

Child support according to the state guidelines.

Half the house (she had to buy out his half, which took most of her settlement). Most of the furniture, but again, she had to pay him for his half.

The older of their two cars.

1/4th of the money he admitted to having (he got his company to withhold giving him a bonus until after the divorce).

No alimony or spousal support (that doesn't exist in this state).

Now this guy was very well-connected politically and was friends with most of the judges in the area. And goodness knows, he needed lots of money to fund his new life with the much younger and more expensive wife, and the judge understood that.

But it's just a myth that a dependent homemaker always gets even half of the marital estate. In my state, that almost never happens. Any promise made during the marriage ("You stay home with the kids, honey. That's your job. I'll always take care of the family, don't worry.") isn't going to matter. The judge has a whole lot of discretion whenever the standard is "equitable distribution".

Not to say that Martina is behaving well. Just that she is behaving pretty much the same way many men in straight marriages do.

Get it in writing. Have a marital attorney write it. Get it signed. Don't assume that a legal marriage license will protect the dependent partner-- it won't.

Better yet, stay employed. Keep your skills and resume burnished. Love doesn't last forever much of the time. Plan for that. Don't be so romantic you neglect your own interests.

And that goes for straight and gay couples, and married and coupled couples. The law isn't going to protect you even if you're legally married. If you're NOT legally married, for whatever reason, you have to be even more careful, because the law is going to protect you even less. Let's get real.

This situation just happened to my mother. After 18 years she was kicked out of her home, a home she helped build, with nowhere to go but hundreds of miles away to an unfamiliar city to live with me in my apartment. Her ex (and her new girlfriend) still have many of my family heirlooms because my mom could not afford to rent a moving van. And according to some of the letters I just read, my mom doesn't deserve justice because same-sex marriage isn't legal?

This is a multimillion dollar lawsuit. Do you think she should throw the game to make a political point that almost no one would ever hear about? Divorce is an ugly acrimonious thing.

Why would anyone aspire to register under heterosexual institutionalized marriage contracts? If I ever go that route, it's all about pre-nups. Enough gold digging.

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.

Well then I guess Martina is going to have to stay celibate for the rest of her life.

She doesn't do hookups and with her lifestyle, she can't have a relationship with someone who isn't willing or able to just pick up and go with her wherever her business needs take her.

According to your rules, wealthy people either have to stay celibate or only marry people who are so rich that they don't need jobs.

I think most of those people would rather have to pay alimony than stay single for the rest of their lives.

If you are getting together with someone who's way richer than you are, someone with a globe-trotting lifestyle whose partner has to be able to travel around with them, then get it spelled out in the prenup how much your own earning ability will take a hit from living the life the more wealthy person needs to live, and make sure that person agrees in writing to compensate you for what you gave up to be with them and satisfy their social and emotional needs.

If the person isn't willing to do that, then kick him or her to the curb and let that person find some other idiot to use.

I believe what the article is saying is not whether Navratilova is right or her lover was a gold digger. It simply making the case that the court should hear the arguments based upon the facts of the case, and that it shouldn't matter if this was a gay or straight relationship.

The problem is that Navratilova is trying to get everything tossed out not on the grounds that her lover didn't deserve anything, but that since this was a gay relationship, it doesn't count.

The court should hear the case, then base any settlements upon the facts. Maybe her exlover is a just gold digger. Maybe her former lover doesn't deserve the millions she's seeking. Maybe marriage is a dead institution. Maybe gays on the whole don't want hetro marriage. But none of these are the issue.

The issue is quite simple: Should this case be tried as if there was a relationship as true as any heterosexual relationship?

This is actually much more important than fighting for gay marriage. If the courts recognize that gays may enter into the same legally binding types of relationships that straight couples have, then it doesn't really matter what any propositions or legislatures say about the issue. Gay marriage will simply be legally binding, and no legislative act can change that. At that point, gay marriage will simply be legal in all fifty states.