One of the things that makes me ashamed to be associated with the female gender is this grotesque sense of entitlement after a breakup. I have NEVER asked for a single cent from a man I broke up with. I got off my butt and made my own way. It was tough, but I'm now the one terrified that a romantic liason would turn me into a fiscal patsy.

If we'd eliminate virtually all sense of entitlement, except what's warranted to keep children housed, clothed and fed, this entire goldigger concept could die the death it deserves.

I'm with Martina 100%. I hope she keeps the next tootsie at arm's length so that her hard earned assets remain where they belong, with the person who earned them.

I think the real question here is, how many of these women were just in it for the money? We hear all the time about women marrying rich men for money, so is it really outside the realm of possibility that this would also happen in the gay community? Either way, it seems like Navratilova is a bad example for the gay community to hold up as an icon, especially to it's critics. "Oh, look, this proves that homosexuals can't have stable relationships." She is relying on the bigoted laws against gays to justify keeping her money. This woman should not be allowed to be a role model for the gay community if she is just going to use the same excuses the other side uses the moment they are conveinent.

That would depend on whether the woman could demonstrate she'd passed up work in her own profession for the sake of "their family." It's a lot easier to make that case when the basis is caring for minor children rather than providing companionship.

A great deal has been written about whether straight America is ready; less has been written about whether gay America is ready. Not just to be held to the same contractual standards as heterosexual couples but to believe (after years of being told otherwise) that their relationships really are of equal standing. And to go on believing it when those relationships collapse.

This is incredibly insulting to those gay couples who don't happen to be celebrities and who have honored their relationships as much as or more than their straight counterparts. I am with my husband for 17 years, only legally married in the past one year. Just as we did not wait around for the rest of the world to tell us that our relationship is legitimate, we did not wait for it to become legally recognized to decide for ourselves that our relationship is bound by the same responsibilities. Who are you to lecture us or question whether we are ready?

Not to mention that it is disingenuous to discuss Navratilova's situation as if it were representative of gay relationships. Straight people in the midst of divorce employ lawyers to find any way, legal or otherwise, to get around their legal responsibilities, particularly when a lot of money is involved; celebrity divorce can be even more treacherous. But you don't presume to characterize all straight relationships in those terms, or question their commitments and standards. You would never look at Jon & Kate, or Alec & Kim, or Donald & Ivana, and then propose that straight people as a whole haven't earned the right to marry.

This kind of double standard stinks of the kind of condescension we hear more often now, about how gays need to kowtow and placate the majority in order to prove we are good little boys and girls, non-threatening, to be worthy of something they have without demand or argument.

If you want to be even close to fair, do a point-by-point analysis of the rights and responsibilities that are part of marriage; prove to us, without laughing, how virtuously straight people have honored them, and then discuss whether gay relationships meet the same standard. Be sure to take into consideration that many gay relationships have thrived without those inherent advantages or legal responsibilities that often bind straight couples who otherwise would split.

This is another example of why we need marriage. Having said that, anyone partnering up with Navratilova can be expected to know that means she won't want to share her wealth with them after the breakup. Some support may be in order, but the partner should not have had any illusions about where Martina stood. Marriage would have the benfit of forcing Martina to put that in writing up front.

I would put this break-up in the celebrity partner category (which probably has the highest rate of relationship failure).

Mick Jagger wouldn't marry Jerry Hall for years because his divorce from Bianca cleaned him out.

Are there homosexual relationships that last a lifetime?

Yes, of course.

My experience tells me however, that most homosexual people treat relationships like serial monogamy.

I support full rights for homosexual unions, up to marriage, although as an earlier poster pointed out, in Canada the idea of a civil union with almost the same rights was common for many years. However, along with rights come responsibilities, and as it stands now, according to law, they were just two women living together, each always free to go their separate ways.

No judge is going to create law from the bench over this, even if that judge is sympathetic.

I agree with your sentiments, but there's a flaw in your argument: "Palimony" cases have established the right of an unmarried longterm partner to receive support after a breakup. In deciding that Martina owes her former partner support, the court would be acknowledging the equality of their relationship to a common law marriage between a man and a woman.

On another point, how stupid was it for EITHER of them to enter a relationship without a prenup? Martina should have learned her lesson from Judy Nelson, with whom she was rumored to have settled for about $3.5 million. And Layton should have realized that Martina's verbal promises were worthless.

...those with assets are encouraged to draw up a cohabitation agreement before anybody other than a platonic roommate moves in. Civil unions, open to gays, obligate each partner to spousal support similar to that of marriage in the event of break-up.