I'm sorry but "galimony" is a funny neologism capturing a relatively legal territory.

And as long as we are talking double standards I'm not sure Ms. Navratilova should not be afforded the same normative, if not legal, defense that hetero-sexual men take in these situations, i.e., she is the one that earned the millions of dollars. The fact that she has continued to earn millions of dollars while going through this series of companions would tend to undermine the argument that any one of them contributed substantially to her success.

I always find it interesting when the majority tells the minority that they are not doing this or not doing that properly. Forty years since gays pushed back in Greenwich against the police. Forty years since they said enough. And how far have they come? You cannot begin to fathom what they have endured. It is nobel to be a minority of color, sex, nationality and to organize and work for equality. But in this nation, we continue to castigate those fighting for equality under the rainbow banner. And now you tell them, with finger wagging, you need to be abiding by the rule of marriage that we don't grant you when dealing with your ex in order not to set your people back? Say...wha?? I say the SECOND we finally give the homosexual segment of our society FREEDOM and RIGHTS to live as they should in this nation under this constitution is the SECOND we start holding them to the standard. But until then, they can do as they please as a people threatened, demonized, objectified, maligned and considered by many as less than worthy of basic human rights.

DOMA abrogated "full faith and credit" with regard to recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. Thus we have the anomaly that NY recognizes such marriages (done by executive order), but does not have ME. A bill to recognize same sex marriage was passed in the Assembly but will go nowhere for the time being because our Senate is the laughingstock of the nation.

Should the constitutionality of DOMA be taken up by the Supreme court? Probably. Will it? No.

Should Obama press for repeal of DOMA? Yes. Will he? Sadly, no.

And wish her a happy marriage. And give her a strap-on device.

no legal consequences for unrecognized relationships...

Don't knock Martina, her behavior is typical of any divorce. But the legal limbo which same-sex face in these situations is just another reason why a "civil union" or the awful current situation of no legal recognition at all is unacceptable. It's just another legal gray area same sex couples have to deal wtih.

We need gay marriage so we can have gay divorce. Gay marriages shouldn't operate on the legal fringes

Interesting that gays are protected from the parasites who fall in love with, then fall out of love with and victimize those who happen to have lots of assets or income. It makes sense that assets earned and accumulated during a relationship should be split upon a breakup, but that's not how the system works.

Instead our crazy courts heap favoritism and exaggerated benefits the partner of lower income, treating them as chattel unable to consent; thus granting them "alimony", permanent cash flow--as if once you buy in to being the property or sex toy of a rich person, you're permanently entitled to the lifestyle to which you've become accustomed--in the words of the god of paternalism Judge Keene on "Divorce Court".

When you live a luxurious lifestyle because of WHO you're with, you shouldn't be able to hang onto the lifestyle. Duh!

Did I read correctly? Was this marriage performed in New Hampshire, where it was legally sanctioned? If so, Florida or no Florida, there's an opportunity for the LGBT community here. Properly handled, this could be the case the right has feared all along. I am speaking about "full faith and credit". Few issues are more fundamental to a federal system of government. With the right legal approach, this one could go to the Supreme Court. Martina may have performed yet another service for the LGBT community, albeit unintentionally.

What do you people think marriage actually is? Marriage is a legal, contractual partnership. When that partnership dissolves, both parties are entitled to benefit from the financial fruits of that union- no matter who did the actual earning. Legally, morally and emotionally, Toni does deserve a settlement, just like any other stay at home or working wife of a wealthy spouse. While she doesn't deserve 50% of anything, she does deserve a portion of the dollars earned during the relationship.

"This get off yer butt and earn money" mentality that many posters seem to have is ignorant and backward, and does no one any good. The mentality that the wealthier party in a divorce does not owe the less flush party a settlement is sexist and demeaning to women - and men. It's the mentality that partners are disposable and lives can be thrown away when a newer, younger model comes along. Women have fought against being traded in and thrown away for years, which is one reason modern divorce laws call for some sort of equitable split.

Additionally, an actual read of the article will point out the hypocrisy of Martina preening as a gay icon while using the most archaic and insidious means to deny her ex-wife a settlement. Martina can't have it both ways - she can be an icon or she can set gay rights back yet again.

How about Florida takes a dim view of "civil rights for gays," or simply "civil rights." Your phrasing sounds like it was pulled from a Family Research Council press release.

We all know that the first duty of Martina Navratilova's partner was to make Martina happy. Certainly her life had to endlessly revolve around Martina's (she being the rich and famous one; few people are willing to be a poodle for a poor person--that's why we keep people poor in the first place so that we have people who do all the menial tasks we don't want to do our self). She no doubt was entrusted with the task of making Martina's life more manageable, much as husbands expect their wives to do for them (but not the other way round). All those mundane tasks people who think they're too important to have to do were no doubt palmed off to the partner. Along with managing things, making life easier for her majesty (who's just too important to deal with them herself), offering emotional support (while getting none in return), and massaging Martina's ego, she would have had to have always been there for her too and catered to her every demand.

The pay-off for doing so of course was being able to partake of the lifestyles of the rich and famous (although it has its drawbacks--being beholden, for one; and having to bask in the other's glory). As along as she drove Martina into ecstasies and managed to keep her attracted, then jet-setting and a life of luxury would be hers too. The problem is that attraction doesn't last forever--nor, for that matter, does love (especially if it's mostly based on lust). And when the passion has died, and the two are always bickering, or dissatisfaction has set in, the one in the position to do so can always dump the other one.

That's even more true if one of the pair is a famous celebrity. Because of their fame and riches, those like Navratilova actually believe that ordinary laws and rules of behaviour don't apply to them, and waste no time using their money and influence to get their way and to buy themselves out of trouble. That Martina doesn't want to give her former partner her due share is hardly surprising. That would entail recognizing her as an equal.

The fact is, however, that in a capitalist society, where materialism and making money are worshiped, not having money makes you a non-entity in the eyes of others. You command no respect--even if you do self-sacrificing work for the community or look after others rather than yourself. Nobody really cares about the great work the window cleaner does. Instead they're more likely to be looked down upon because it is simply assumed that they're doing what they are because they're just too dumb to do anything else, just as Navratilova's partner (like many wives really who give up a job to take care of their families because that's what others have decided that's what she should be doing to keep a marriage working) are assumed to just be 'gold diggers' (the sexism is amazing).

What this shows is that being rich gets you respect, even though much wealth is dubiously accumulated and often requires many others to perform jobs that enable the wealthy to have their 'careers, while being poor or of middling income does not. The fact that this partner may have had to put up with a lot, and swallow humble pie because she's not the one with the riches, makes no difference. Her contribution to the partnership can be swept away simply because she isn't considered important enough. She's apparently a nobody--living off a rich person--and that is enough for some awful people posting here to think that entitles her to nothing; to in effect be treated badly. That's what misogynist husbands have always thought about their spouses--despite the endless washing, cooking and cleaning they've had to do, and the toil that takes (many a misogynist female is also just as happy to dismiss her efforts too, while happily using the professional services of a cleaner or nanny to do the tasks she's too lazy to do herself, just like many a husband). Yeah, Martina should fork her money over. She got something out of that relationship, and had the better deal.