If the herero couple in your example had a marriage ceremony they both knew was not legally binding, would we still expect the husband to pay his wife alimony? I don't think so; that wasn't an expectation the husband had freely agreed to take, so it shouldn't be forced upon him. It certainly might be the morally appropriate thing to do -particularly if they would have gotten a legal marriage if that was possible. However, we tend to look away when separation reveals the uglier side of people's natures. We should grant Martina the same curtesy.

Just looked to me like the point of the article was that Martina Navratilova is kinda an asshole. I don't think this was an attack on:

Gays

Gay marriage

Straight marriage

People who end relationships

I guess it was a bit contentiously-worded, but I'm surprised at just how hostile some of the letters are towards Bayard.

If there are any Navratilova "supporters" here who are claiming that she's being perfectly FAIR regarding this breakup, I have a question.

Would you favor eliminating the OTHER forms of post-breakup monetary support? (Not including child-support--that's a very different case.)

Should a spouse have to pay for the ongoing living expenses of a former spouse at all?

I reject this whoile sleazy article for a completely different reason.

Why on earth should Martina (or everyone else) be forced to give someone money without ever having entered a valid and balanced contract to do so?

Why does this chick deserve alimony? Can't she ... gasp .... work for her money, like the rest of us?

This article implicitly assumes Martina to be some kind of golden goose for everyone she ever had a relation with. Why?

We shoould get rid of this crap alltogether.

Navratilova was always a bit to Ayn Randish for me to take seriously as anything other than a very calculating and conniving athlete/race horse. I'm not surprised by this at all.

I agree that there's no end of bad break-up behavior in both camps, but Martina did put herself out there as a role model. The LGBT community did not pick her against her will. She does ads, cruises, etc, all promoting her as an activist for equal rights. So she does have to hold herself to a higher standard.

Newt did as well by being a part of the impeach Clinton team.

Granted that her record is probably no worse than Newt's, but Newt paid a fairly high price for his infidelity. He resigned and probably has no chance to reclaim his previous positions, in part based on his marital issues.

I think the author just wanted to point out that activists and role models who seek to overturn existing law shouldn't use that self-same law to screw their partner.

Would you roll over and/or sign any piece of paper shoved under your nose if your soon to be ex mate was, oh, handicapped? Why not? Oppressed people need a hand up. Be a role model.

See the weird thing is, Louis that legal marriage among gays would not actually make any difference in contested divorces. They all end in blood. All of them.

Namely that Martina Navratilova has an obligation to be a responsible role model for same sex couples. This puts an unfair burden on minorities. And that's never been the objection to same-sex marriage anyway. If inability to accept responsibility was the basis to deny them the right to marry, gays could easily point out the martial history of Newt Gingrich, who shamelessly exploited his first wife's cancer on the campaign trail and then served her with divorce papers while she was hospitalized.He waited to sign a book deal until she could no longer legally claim a share. His actions do not reflect on other heterosexual men or the institution of marriage, only on himself.

Eight years is a long time. In California a judge would look at how much of the woman's support came from Martina. If it's over 90%, then she's entitled to support (whether they are married or not) though probably not to property Martina may own in the state. You can't just cast someone out after providing for them.

Why would Martina be adverse? Well, the level of support would be based on her income, which would make it far more than her former partner needs to survive. Instead she's paying big bucks to a lawyer to exploit the loop-poles.

I have a colleague who recently called it quits with her husband who made a marginal economic contribution to their union which became a source of increasing marital tension. Nonetheless, he is probably entitled to spousal support, though he didn't request any. She is continuing to carry him on her health care policy until he gets on his feet financially in a place with more opportunities. And they remain friends.

Disappointing that Martina, whom I have also admired for many years (and I'm not a tennis fan), would contradict her own activism with actions that seek to diminish the validity of her own personal relationships. Disappointing that so many readers took offense that Martina's actions be questioned. I don't think the writer slammed gay people in general, but maybe I missed that. Relationships are tough, with or without marriage, straight or gay, and money clearly complicates things. Sad for all involved.

Will any woman in the future be foolish enough to trust Martina's declarations of love? Get a good pre-nup and sock away all gifts and grocery money...and how sad and cynical that would be, though probably wise from the standpoint of self-protection.

Let's get the government out of the business of sanctifiying marriages altogether -- leave that to churches or other private inclinations -- and just register legal partnerships for all adults of any sexual persuasion. That would also encompass elderly housemates (not lovers) who just want to assure that a trusted friend would be allowed to make decisions in the case of one's incapacitation, for example. Society needs legally recognized partnerships of all kinds, from businesses to spouses and everything in between. It doesn't need to define marriage.

See The article What's Right With Utah http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090713/duggan for examples of what is being done by LGBT activists in the reddest red state to further *all* rights for gays, not just marriage rights.