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.

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!

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?

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.