How about Florida takes a dim view of "civil rights for gays," or simply "civil rights." Your phrasing sounds like it was pulled from a Family Research Council press release.

What do you people think marriage actually is? Marriage is a legal, contractual partnership. When that partnership dissolves, both parties are entitled to benefit from the financial fruits of that union- no matter who did the actual earning. Legally, morally and emotionally, Toni does deserve a settlement, just like any other stay at home or working wife of a wealthy spouse. While she doesn't deserve 50% of anything, she does deserve a portion of the dollars earned during the relationship.

"This get off yer butt and earn money" mentality that many posters seem to have is ignorant and backward, and does no one any good. The mentality that the wealthier party in a divorce does not owe the less flush party a settlement is sexist and demeaning to women - and men. It's the mentality that partners are disposable and lives can be thrown away when a newer, younger model comes along. Women have fought against being traded in and thrown away for years, which is one reason modern divorce laws call for some sort of equitable split.

Additionally, an actual read of the article will point out the hypocrisy of Martina preening as a gay icon while using the most archaic and insidious means to deny her ex-wife a settlement. Martina can't have it both ways - she can be an icon or she can set gay rights back yet again.

Did I read correctly? Was this marriage performed in New Hampshire, where it was legally sanctioned? If so, Florida or no Florida, there's an opportunity for the LGBT community here. Properly handled, this could be the case the right has feared all along. I am speaking about "full faith and credit". Few issues are more fundamental to a federal system of government. With the right legal approach, this one could go to the Supreme Court. Martina may have performed yet another service for the LGBT community, albeit unintentionally.

Interesting that gays are protected from the parasites who fall in love with, then fall out of love with and victimize those who happen to have lots of assets or income. It makes sense that assets earned and accumulated during a relationship should be split upon a breakup, but that's not how the system works.

Instead our crazy courts heap favoritism and exaggerated benefits the partner of lower income, treating them as chattel unable to consent; thus granting them "alimony", permanent cash flow--as if once you buy in to being the property or sex toy of a rich person, you're permanently entitled to the lifestyle to which you've become accustomed--in the words of the god of paternalism Judge Keene on "Divorce Court".

When you live a luxurious lifestyle because of WHO you're with, you shouldn't be able to hang onto the lifestyle. Duh!

Don't knock Martina, her behavior is typical of any divorce. But the legal limbo which same-sex face in these situations is just another reason why a "civil union" or the awful current situation of no legal recognition at all is unacceptable. It's just another legal gray area same sex couples have to deal wtih.

We need gay marriage so we can have gay divorce. Gay marriages shouldn't operate on the legal fringes

no legal consequences for unrecognized relationships...

And wish her a happy marriage. And give her a strap-on device.

DOMA abrogated "full faith and credit" with regard to recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. Thus we have the anomaly that NY recognizes such marriages (done by executive order), but does not have ME. A bill to recognize same sex marriage was passed in the Assembly but will go nowhere for the time being because our Senate is the laughingstock of the nation.

Should the constitutionality of DOMA be taken up by the Supreme court? Probably. Will it? No.

Should Obama press for repeal of DOMA? Yes. Will he? Sadly, no.

I always find it interesting when the majority tells the minority that they are not doing this or not doing that properly. Forty years since gays pushed back in Greenwich against the police. Forty years since they said enough. And how far have they come? You cannot begin to fathom what they have endured. It is nobel to be a minority of color, sex, nationality and to organize and work for equality. But in this nation, we continue to castigate those fighting for equality under the rainbow banner. And now you tell them, with finger wagging, you need to be abiding by the rule of marriage that we don't grant you when dealing with your ex in order not to set your people back? Say...wha?? I say the SECOND we finally give the homosexual segment of our society FREEDOM and RIGHTS to live as they should in this nation under this constitution is the SECOND we start holding them to the standard. But until then, they can do as they please as a people threatened, demonized, objectified, maligned and considered by many as less than worthy of basic human rights.

I'm sorry but "galimony" is a funny neologism capturing a relatively legal territory.

And as long as we are talking double standards I'm not sure Ms. Navratilova should not be afforded the same normative, if not legal, defense that hetero-sexual men take in these situations, i.e., she is the one that earned the millions of dollars. The fact that she has continued to earn millions of dollars while going through this series of companions would tend to undermine the argument that any one of them contributed substantially to her success.

I think the author starts form the wrong premise: Martina Navratilova’s behaviour only reproduces very many unfortunate hetero break ups: Anything goes against your ex-partner. If it implies using homophobic and anti-gay provisions in the law: so be it. Who has not met ex-couples one or both of whom showed a despicable behaviour as they obviously could not overcome rancour, and who made life a living hell for the other and for third parties, e.g. children.

Does that excuse Martina’s behaviour? Quite obviously not. It might be particularly unhappy that in the course of the War of Roses she seeks recourse in anti-gay measures but anything goes is damning whether you are gay or hetero.

I tend to think that Martina’s case(s) only show how far gay and lesbian couples have come into society’s mainstream, for better or worse. It might be appropriate to call upon gays and lesbians to abstain from anty-gay low blows but you should be aware that you’d be asking more from them than from heteros.