I do like living near the gay marriage capital of the world: Toronto. The Pride parades are one of the biggest events in Toronto. Bigger than Canada Day parades.

That being said, it's disingenuous for Martina to be a serial monogamist and then cynically take advantage of the laws as they now stand to be a heel. A promise is a promise. That being said, I think the California laws make the most sense: support should be proportionate to the years spent together.

The right to live "as she became accustomed to" is not a guaranteed right. Women in heterosexual marriages statistically see a 73% drop in income after divorce. Life is not fair.

But that's the risk you have to take when clamouring for equal rights. Gay people risk disappointment and divorce when getting equal access to marriage.

But those whose marriages work out get a lifetime of security and happiness. It's still refreshing to see what little fuss there is in Canada over gay marriages. It's seen as a given right. I look forward to the day when Americans can just let gays have equal rights to marriage. And equal responsibility.

I am amazed (I don't know why, really.) at the number of Heterosexuals out there that seemingly have no problem denying their very own Gay & Lesbian creations equal marriage rights, yet would still hold them accountable to marital law in their relationships.

Please, can a Heterosexual with a sound mind address that issue? Because it makes ZERO sense.

How, exactly, are you coming to the conclusion that an UNMARRIED lesbian couple who is BANNED FROM MARRIAGE BY LAWS THAT HETEROSEXUALS PUT IN PLACE AGAINST THE VERY GAY PEOPLE THEY CREATED, should then be held accountable to marital law when the relationship ends??? Are y'all for real here??? Or are you merely suggesting that Martina should, out of the goodness of her heart, take care of her EX financially?

Sorry, Heteros. You can't have it both ways. (Leave that to us sexual perverts!)

We as Gay & Lesbian citizens have seen the ARSENAL of vile weapons and disgusting tactics that Heteros use against each other in THIER divorce cases, haven't we. How bitterly and disgustingly you fight and drag your children through such nastiness and sorrow for your own gain.

Who knew? Heterosexuals hold Homosexuals to a higher standard than they hold themselves.

Now THAT certainly is something to chew on, isn't it?

Morals indeed, Heteros. Morals, indeed.

I doubt you'd lump me into the group you're yelling about, but I do judge Navratilova harshly in this situation and think she's behaving despicably.

She's very wealthy, and she spent years supported by her lover, who is not very wealthy. I don't believe for a second that her ex deserves anything like half of her estate, but 8 years of support and contribution to Navratilova's personal well-being has to be worth SOMETHING.

Would the suit have been filed if Toni had gotten a million dollar check, I wonder? Is she digging for gold because she was insulted by Martina's first settlement offer? Hell, I might even buy the tell-all memoirs of both sides just for a giggle.

(Personally, I suspect this has become a vengeful pissing match on the part of both individuals involved, and since they've involved the legal system now, both deserve whatever comes next.)

@blunderdog:

I know you can't actually SEE me, but I wasn't really yelling. Not exactly, anyway. ; )

Also, I am not defending Martina AT ALL. She has always handled her relationships in this manner. It's who she is. It's HER business. Not OURS. Unless we have the misfortune of being her latest temp-lady.

I just wanted a Gay-sane Heterosexual to address my point. Or simply to answer this question:

How can you deny marriage rights to an entire segment of the population, yet think that you should be able to hold them accountable to marital law, as we are banned BY HETEROSEXUALS from the institution of marriage?

Simple question. Zero answers thus far.

And to suggest, as this 'article' does, and not so indirectly, that Martina should 'man-up' and do the right thing discounts decades and decades of the Heterosexual training we have received in this ugly thing called divorce. We have seen how Heterosexuals handle divorce. We have ALL seen it. Gay people have seen it, too, folks, since you are always shoving YOUR lifestyles down OUR throats. 50% of the time (even higher if you're religious! oh, the hypocrisy, as the Bible says divorce - a big no-no.) it ends very, very badly and ugly. Usually with the children paying the price.

So again, are Homosexuals being held to a higher standard than Heterosexuals hold themselves?

Simple question. Even simpler answer.

"How can you deny marriage rights to an entire segment of the population, yet think that you should be able to hold them accountable to marital law, as we are banned BY HETEROSEXUALS from the institution of marriage?"

No "gay-sane het" is going to answer this, because no "gay-sane het" is simultaneously opposing gay marriage AND saying Navratilova should give half her estate to her former lover. This isn't "divorce court"--this is just a standard civil lawsuit about an alleged verbal contract.

At least, I didn't see posters advocating both positions here. I think you're asking the wrong folks.

As for me, since the it's evident that the government and people of the USA obviously no longer care about the Constitution, I'd suggest that we get the government out of the marriage business altogether, and permit "marriage" to exist as anyone chooses to define it for themselves.

Just strip "marriage" of any and all LEGAL implications.

Use state-performed "civil unions" for legal purposes.

That saves us all a bunch of trouble. Churches don't have to marry anyone, gay-haters can rest easy knowing that THEIR church will never "marry" a same-sex couple, and everyone gets equivalent legal status in their civil unions.

Looks to me like that's the only real solution. If we try to push "gay marriage" through the government, it's just going to cause more trouble than it's worth.

(Another option would be to honor the Constitution and permit gay couples to marry, as per the 14th amendment, but as I said, we've moved away from that document recently, and the vast majority of the citizenry appears to prefer it this way.)