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.

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.

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.

She had done very well over the course of her six-year union while her husband had struggled to find work (as an actor). Instead of complaining about the unfairness of it all and lugging around a lot of bitterness, she paid the court-ordered spousal support to someone she had met and fallen in love with in graduate school but whom, she decided as she approached her 30s, did not possess the qualities she desired in a life partner. He used the property settlement to buy a business with the woman who became his second wife that supports a family of four.

She is not married. If she wanted to marry, she couldn't.

Would you argue that blacks who couldn't vote should have elected leaders who would have let them vote? That children are lazy and good for nothing when they rely on their parents and don't deserve to become adults?

With rights come responsibities. Not before.

...she gets financially raped and subjected to false accusations the way men have been for decades.

Welcome to the Monkey House, my lesbian sisters.

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

And how have they treated their marriages?

Most straight relathionships aren't marriages. No gay relationships are. With no way, marriage, to deliniate the casual from serious, how can an outsider devine intent?

Oh, and 1/2 of straight marriages end in divorce. How many straight marriages are monogamous?

The story of Martina Navratilova's ugly breakups shows that there are two kinds of people in this world...

The very rich, and everyone else. Her small-minded and legalistically mercenary behavior has nothing to do with her being gay.

...I can remember an uncle of mine complaining he should have stipulated spousal support for his ex-wife, and the mother of his two children, ended when she took up residence with another man rather than upon her remarriage. He no doubt had nightmares of her living the good life with another fella on his dime, a scenario that seemed too improbable to consider when they divorced in the mid-1970s.

My own father was shocked to learn men could be awarded spousal support, insisting "a real man would earn it on his own." To limit spousal support to women is very sexist, however.

Gack!

BTW I got to watch Martina and Chris play for "fun" at the Aspen Club during the Judy Nelson days.

You wouldn't want to get hit by one of those balls. Damn.

I recall that as soon as Prince Bandar got permission to build his mega-mansion in Starwood, Martina applied for a permit to build one even bigger.

If she can afford to build a house bigger than Prince Bandar's, then I think she can afford a little alimony.

...was well known for decades: Rita Mae Brown even wrote a roman-a-clef about their relationship and its downfall, Sudden Death (1984). Irrespective of whether one considers gay marriage a threat of some kind (I don't), anyone getting involved with Martina should have known better.

What do you know, it turns out, being gay doesn't automatically make you a nice person. Surprise! This all seems about on par with behavior during any other "palimony" lawsuit, i.e. "this person was not my spouse, even though I spoke words of commitment to them, bla bla bla".

Martina is entitled to keep her money and her possessions -- she earned them. I guess I don't see why being someone's spouse or life partner entitles you to money and property you didn't earn, post break-up. The *one* exception to that would be if one spouse forgoes a career (and thus a personal savings account) based upon a mutually-understood agreement that the other spouse's income and retirement funds would provide for them both. But that is not the case in this suit.

The proper comparison would have been is a rich man lavished his girl friend for years, then tossed her out. No palimony for gold diggers, i say.

Decided not too long ago by the Washington Supreme Court (Washington being one of the states whose courts turned down an equal protection lawsuit on gay marriage even though it was brought by a high public official who wanted to certify gay marriages). In this case, the birth mother of a child sought to use the old, tired, homophobic common law rules to deny any kind of parental rights to her ex-partner, who had previously raised the child with her as a parent. The court said bullshit, it doesn't work that way.