I agree that there's no end of bad break-up behavior in both camps, but Martina did put herself out there as a role model. The LGBT community did not pick her against her will. She does ads, cruises, etc, all promoting her as an activist for equal rights. So she does have to hold herself to a higher standard.

Newt did as well by being a part of the impeach Clinton team.

Granted that her record is probably no worse than Newt's, but Newt paid a fairly high price for his infidelity. He resigned and probably has no chance to reclaim his previous positions, in part based on his marital issues.

I think the author just wanted to point out that activists and role models who seek to overturn existing law shouldn't use that self-same law to screw their partner.

Navratilova was always a bit to Ayn Randish for me to take seriously as anything other than a very calculating and conniving athlete/race horse. I'm not surprised by this at all.

I reject this whoile sleazy article for a completely different reason.

Why on earth should Martina (or everyone else) be forced to give someone money without ever having entered a valid and balanced contract to do so?

Why does this chick deserve alimony? Can't she ... gasp .... work for her money, like the rest of us?

This article implicitly assumes Martina to be some kind of golden goose for everyone she ever had a relation with. Why?

We shoould get rid of this crap alltogether.

Just looked to me like the point of the article was that Martina Navratilova is kinda an asshole. I don't think this was an attack on:

Gays

Gay marriage

Straight marriage

People who end relationships

I guess it was a bit contentiously-worded, but I'm surprised at just how hostile some of the letters are towards Bayard.

If there are any Navratilova "supporters" here who are claiming that she's being perfectly FAIR regarding this breakup, I have a question.

Would you favor eliminating the OTHER forms of post-breakup monetary support? (Not including child-support--that's a very different case.)

Should a spouse have to pay for the ongoing living expenses of a former spouse at all?

If the herero couple in your example had a marriage ceremony they both knew was not legally binding, would we still expect the husband to pay his wife alimony? I don't think so; that wasn't an expectation the husband had freely agreed to take, so it shouldn't be forced upon him. It certainly might be the morally appropriate thing to do -particularly if they would have gotten a legal marriage if that was possible. However, we tend to look away when separation reveals the uglier side of people's natures. We should grant Martina the same curtesy.

Suppose, for example, that gays were not allowed to own property, only rent. I find a house I'd love to buy, and its owner would love to sell it to me, but since he cannot, I lease it and faithfully pay rent for 8 years. Then, the roof collapses in a storm and, rather than wait for it to be repaired, I exercise my legal right to not renew the lease and move out.

Oh, and this whole time I've been a rights activist campaigning that everyone should be allowed to own property regardless of sexual orientation.

The owner sues me for his lost income because I've moved out, under the rationale that, if I'd been legally allowed to, I would have bought the property years ago and now would be bearing the costs of its repair. WTF?

It's absurd to argue whatifs and shouldas about what Martina and whatserface would have done if it had been legal for them to marry in Florida 8 years ago. They didn't marry! Instead, as fully competent adults, they entered into a romantic, noncontractual relationship without any expectation for lifetime income support.

Now, the dumped ex is going for the gold. Is she emotionally wounded, or just cynically chasing the dollars? It doesn't matter! All that matters are the legal Xs and Os.

Equal rights means that she's entitled to what she would get as the straight girlfriend (not wife!) of a wealthy man, no more no less. Regardless of what other legal options were or weren't available while they were together (and there are all kinds of lifetime trusts, annuities and other things they *could* have done to ensure whatserface was taken care of).

It just seems so much punitive self-flagellation for gay rights activists to question and beat each other up over something like this, it's Martina's personal life and personal affairs, stay out of it! She's not a hypocrite because her lawyers contest overreaching claims against her, that's their job.

If gay marriage had been always legal, would she be a 6-times divorcée, remain a never-married bachelorette with a bunch of ex-girlfriends, or somewhere in between? Bottom line: you can't judge her fairly on hypotheticals, and I can't see what possible good it's doing to cut her down. You're just making the christian right's talking points that gay relationships are superficial and impermanent for them.

A hundred comments ago, someone asked why an able bodied adult needed alimony. If someone said to me "I'm rich, leave your job and I'll support you" that's all well and good until it ends.

After it ends I might expect some help getting my career back on track. That's a long workplace absence to explain on a resume, and having someone else pay for schooling or an internship does seem fair.

This statistic is always thrown around, yet I've never looked up the sourcing for it.

Anyone know where to find such info?

What I'm really wondering about is the breakdown of where the "failed" marriages are coming from.

Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, and Elizabeth Taylor have contributed approximately 11 (or was it 12?) divorces to our stats on "American marriage." And they're only 3 people.

Could it be that other folks with similar proclivity to marry are skewing the statistics a bit? What percentage of PEOPLE who marry are getting divorced? If 10% of the divorcing folks are serial-marriage assholes, that 50% statistic might be a little misleading.