It seems like many of the letters here are missing the point. This isn't questioning whether or not a wife of a eight years is worthy of spousal support. This is about an out lesbian who wants to consider herself an activist, screwing over the gay community so she doesn't have to pay spousal support. By undermining her own vows, she's saying "I am not equal with heterosexual couples."

Clearly her checkbook is more important than her ideals.

should anyone live off of anyone else, and why should the legal system be involved. If people want to play that game it should be a private transaction and as long as all laws and valid contracts are observed then whatever they end up with or don't end up with is their and only their business.

Mr. Bayard- I don't agree with you. This kind of thing has happened in plenty of straight relationships. There are times, in straight or gay relationships, when someone is a "gold digger." I think that lesbian relationships are especially vulnerable to this. Hey, Ms. Leighton had a great eight years in the "good life." Why didn't she try to improve her own situation with acquiring "her own" "earned" assets? Was she kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? And, you don't know the full dynamics and exactly what took place in their relaionship.

I say give her a break...point

Seems like an argument against marriage to me. If someone's job is going to be to wait on/hang out with someone else pay them a salary, otherwise they need their own job.

The gay community needs to grow up and stop pretending that love (and marriage) between same-sex partners is or will be any different than it is for heterosexuals when it comes to divorce, wills, custody and other matters.

What in the world makes you think that LGBT relationships are so special they won't end in these types of conflicts and court battles? Lawyers for heterosexuals use every legal means and loophole available to defend their clients in courts of law. Navratilova - whether she is right or not - is using every law and legal loophole at her disposal. I suspect if the tables were turned and her lovers were the wealthy ones they would do the same.

My guess is these types of battles are playing out all across the country right now, the difference being they aren't in the public eye because they don't involve celebrities. So my message to you is: grow up and stop fantasizing LGBT relationships as perfect equality. Do that and we really WILL be seen and treated as "normal."

Disappointing that Martina, whom I have also admired for many years (and I'm not a tennis fan), would contradict her own activism with actions that seek to diminish the validity of her own personal relationships. Disappointing that so many readers took offense that Martina's actions be questioned. I don't think the writer slammed gay people in general, but maybe I missed that. Relationships are tough, with or without marriage, straight or gay, and money clearly complicates things. Sad for all involved.

Will any woman in the future be foolish enough to trust Martina's declarations of love? Get a good pre-nup and sock away all gifts and grocery money...and how sad and cynical that would be, though probably wise from the standpoint of self-protection.

Let's get the government out of the business of sanctifiying marriages altogether -- leave that to churches or other private inclinations -- and just register legal partnerships for all adults of any sexual persuasion. That would also encompass elderly housemates (not lovers) who just want to assure that a trusted friend would be allowed to make decisions in the case of one's incapacitation, for example. Society needs legally recognized partnerships of all kinds, from businesses to spouses and everything in between. It doesn't need to define marriage.

See The article What's Right With Utah http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090713/duggan for examples of what is being done by LGBT activists in the reddest red state to further *all* rights for gays, not just marriage rights.

Namely that Martina Navratilova has an obligation to be a responsible role model for same sex couples. This puts an unfair burden on minorities. And that's never been the objection to same-sex marriage anyway. If inability to accept responsibility was the basis to deny them the right to marry, gays could easily point out the martial history of Newt Gingrich, who shamelessly exploited his first wife's cancer on the campaign trail and then served her with divorce papers while she was hospitalized.He waited to sign a book deal until she could no longer legally claim a share. His actions do not reflect on other heterosexual men or the institution of marriage, only on himself.

Eight years is a long time. In California a judge would look at how much of the woman's support came from Martina. If it's over 90%, then she's entitled to support (whether they are married or not) though probably not to property Martina may own in the state. You can't just cast someone out after providing for them.

Why would Martina be adverse? Well, the level of support would be based on her income, which would make it far more than her former partner needs to survive. Instead she's paying big bucks to a lawyer to exploit the loop-poles.

I have a colleague who recently called it quits with her husband who made a marginal economic contribution to their union which became a source of increasing marital tension. Nonetheless, he is probably entitled to spousal support, though he didn't request any. She is continuing to carry him on her health care policy until he gets on his feet financially in a place with more opportunities. And they remain friends.

Would you roll over and/or sign any piece of paper shoved under your nose if your soon to be ex mate was, oh, handicapped? Why not? Oppressed people need a hand up. Be a role model.

See the weird thing is, Louis that legal marriage among gays would not actually make any difference in contested divorces. They all end in blood. All of them.