Those who are complaining about gold-diggers. Bear in mind that lesbian couples who have have had children together have also, upon splitting, attempted to 1) separate the other partner from the child using the courts and 2) attempted to renege on child support.

Of course, these relationships are either in states that forbid gay adoption or one parent hasn't had time to finalize the adoption. Is it fair or decent in any way to allow adults to slither out of their repsonsibility simply because the law didn't allow them to conduct their lives as they saw fit? I say no. If you want the benefit, if that's your intent, then you owe the other person. Don't play games with "but we couldn't so we're not even though we really, really wanted to be."

My question to Martina? How did you present your relationship to the world? To toni?

She wants the ability to tout her long-standing lesbian relationships before the world with no repercussions to her standing as a sports icon. Navratilova also wants to cut off her life-partners from any access to her wealth no matter how long they were together. Unfortunately, I'd like to say that she's an especially dumb or venal person but we've seen it all before. Lots of famous athletes conduct themselves in such an atrocious manner. They usually don't get away with it. Here's to hoping that Martina realizes she best settle before her entire reputation is shredded by her poor judgement. No one wants to hear the iconic lesbian player whine about paying alimony or dividing assets. She wants equal rights and here they are. Enjoy!

I think the author and terryd wanted to discuss the hypocrisy of Martina in putting herself out as a spokesperson for LGBT rights, which currently includes marriage. By using the existing law of the land to nullify any legal claims while claiming to want to change the existing laws is what the author hoped to point out here. I don't think she would be held to a higher standard if she hadn't become a spokesperson. She wants adoration from the LGBT community, while trying to set legal precedent against their interest.

Love it or hate it, alimony/palimony is a fact of life and not the point of the article.

And to those who say that you have to prove your mettle first, I can go to any maternity ward and show you a whole floor of babies who have not proved anything, but will be afforded more rights than the average gay person. Last time I checked, the Declaration of Independence didn't say anything about no rights until you've proved yourself.

Sometimes you prove your mettle first, then get benefits. There is some wisdom in the Chinese saying, "When people forget how to live, they create laws." Navratilova should do the right thing herself, not be forced to.

And how many rights were you denied that you had to prove yourself to deserve, Mr. Man? How many times have you had to "do the right thing" even though you were denied the right that would force you into doing it? How easy to set barriers for others you yourself never need to cross.

And if Navratilova "proves her mettle," does that mean only she can marry, or all gay people? If the former, how many other gay people must "prove their mettle" for marriage to be available to all gays? Is it a percentage? Some kind of lottery? An appointed panel?

agreed “to evenly share all funds and assets earned and obtained by either while together.” These assets apparently include four multimillion-dollar homes.

Seems very unlikely that Navratilova and wife earned and obtained enough to buy multimillion-dollar homes in the time they were together, post Martina's athletic prime, unless it was from investments made with earnings made in Martina's athletic prime.

The problem here is not gender. The problem is that there is an expectation of support after a relationship breaks up.

There are definitely cases where one person makes sacrifices with the expectation of bettering the team. And then if the team dissolves, there is something owed to that person. But this should not be presumed.

There are at least as many cases where one person in a relationship lifts the other up. Gives them opportunities that they would never have had (as is likely in the case with Ms. Navratilova), and improves their life during the relationship. But then the relationship doesn't work out.

Why, because someone formed a relationship that didn't work out, would the legal system therefore presume that the stronger (economically or otherwise) of the two should continue to support the other?

That seems like a crazy bit of twisted and obsolete logic left in our legal system from the days when women were thought to be incapable of supporting themselves. It was more about welfare than justice. This need not now be applied to gay couples. It needs to be removed from laws regarding any couples.

"She is one of the two or three greatest women ever to play the game of tennis." Ummmm...doesn't that sentence need an edit?

Shame on Martina Navratilova. Apparently, she wants to be taken seriously as a spokesperson for the LGBT community, but then stoops to disavowing the trappings of a "legitimate" relationship? Notice that I say, "legitimate", not "legal". The issue here is not whether gays and lesbians do or do not have the legal right to marry in certain states; neither is the issue whether Ms. Navratilova ought to have had a pre-nup with her now ex-lover/partner/spouse. She didn't, so that's that. The issue is trying to have it both ways, i.e., trying to be viewed as equal citizens under the law, and then devaluing the very nature of the relationship with legal double-talk. The Lee and Michelle Marvin palimony case was thirty years ago, for heaven's sake! The precedent was set then for unmarried couples whose relationships dissolve. A galimony case should be no different from a palimony suit. Only the genders are different, not the legal precedents, not unless you claim that a lesbian relationship is invalid to begin with. Whether or not one is able-bodied or not is also not germane. When two people live together as spousal equivalents for that many years, the partner who is given the boot is legally entitled to a settlement. Period. What galls me is not that Navratilova is fighting to have the amount of the settlement minimized. After all, husbands and unmarried males do that all the time. What galls me is that she would try to disavow the value and validity of the relationship. Shame on her. I agree with Bayard: grow up, Martina.