I call bullshit. Martina (or any gay person involved in a relationship for that matter) is entitled to the protection of the law as it stands now. THAT was the law under which the relationship existed. THAT was the law under which the relationship terminated. THAT's the law.

Gay people have generally not been provided with the rights of gay marriage, so in the absence of marriage, we have all developed whatever legal constructs we feel we need to get by. Some of those closely approximate marriage. But some are no more binding or complicated than an agreement to share expenses or to support one another while the realtionship lasts.

Why are you suggesting that, because gay people want the marriage option, all gay couples should have to treat their relationships as if they constitute a marriage?? I absolutely disagree with the premise that we would expect that a straight unmarried partner would be awarded property and alimony as if they were actually married to their partner. Aren't people of means (both gay and straight) entitled to organize their affairs to preclude their partners from walking away with a huge chunk of their wealth when the relationship ends, if that's how they choose to do so?

I think Martina is entitled to make whatever legal arguments she is entitled to in connection with this break up, just as any straight person would. And she has the right to choose marriage or to chose NOT to be married, just as any straight couple would. TO hold her to a higher standard because she is gay is simply homophobic.

It's impossible for me to believe that Martina (having been burned once in these matters) actually made the "promise" her girlfriend is alleging, so I'm quite sure, at a minimum, there is a big question of fact here about the terms of their relationship. It's a little early for people to be suggesting that Martina should "do the right thing" and open a vein for this lady. That is what lawyers and courts are for, and Martina is entitled to her day there like everybody else.

You don't know the full story of their relationship. Let's face it: only they do and they will have differing perspectives too. It may be that Martina was betrayed horribly in some way and broke up with her partner in great emotional distress. Why do we always assume (when any relationship ends, gay or straight) that the one sueing for money is the aggrieved party? Money is by no means the measure of a life or a relationship. I would argue that her partner is the one making turning their relationship into a media circus by dragging this through the courts.

Good article, with which I agree...but, given that the writer doesn't think much of Ms. Navratilova, is she really 'one of the two or three greatest women...ever to play tennis'? Or is she one of the two or three greatest women tennis players? I know this is off-point, but good editing is still essential...

"having a ceremony" is most definitely NOT the same thing as making a binding promise to give away half your assets. Any person who believes that throwing a party and uttering some incantations is the same thing as getting married needs to do some research.

and ask her how lesbians find sexual satisfaction.

The law on property settlements is based on the presumably outmoded paradigm in which one partner, the wife, is a helpless female and has little capability to earn a living on her own. The words of the traditional marriage ceremony codify this - the husband takes on the burden of supporting the wife and children. If the partners are to be equal, whatever the sex, then there should be no necessity for this burden of one partner supporting the other to continue after the dissolution of the union. Given current divorce rates it does not make economic sense to have a vast network of legal interdependencies.

Giving a "dependent" partner a lifetime payoff for marrying and divorcing (or being divorced by) a richer person is incentive for preserving inequality in marriage.

I'm startled by the vitriolic hate mail about this short article. Yes, there are bigger issues around gay rights. And Salon has written about them... Should Salon never cover any other aspect of an issue if there are big problems to talk about? Can't we talk about big and little things?

The main points here seem to me to be:

This woman, whom the author has admired, has set herself up as an activist and role model. Not she's acting in a sleazy way. That needs calling out. He's calling her out. I agree with all of that. We are an oppressed group, and it sucks that we have to hold our visible members to a higher standard, but the world judges us by those who are most in the public eye.

She is going into court making arguments that set legal president. This is more than an isolated case between two women. Courts interpret the law, and then issue judgments. Other courts look to the judgments on the books and go from there. Does this story sound like life sucks for the dumpee? Yes. But it may also suck for ALL of us when some state supreme court denies a case to recognize same-sex marriage (Iowa, anyone?) by citing a legal president that our unions are ONLY contracts for sex. Uh, that seems like a big deal to me.

I thought it was a good piece. Keep writing about the major stories of the day, but also keep covering the little stories (that make a difference in the courts of public opinion and in legal courts).

The thing that celebrity lesbian relationships have in common with all other celebrity relationsihps is that I couldn't care less.

I don't care about anyone's sexual preferences or practices, and I'm not the least bit curious. Whether it's Sarah Palin, John Edwards, Bill O'Rally (though kind of amusing), Larry Craig, Vitter, Sanford, Limbaugh, Michelle Obama's arms, Donald Trump, Martina Navratilova, Michael Jackson, Jon and/or Kate...

I don't care about anyone else's private and personal affairs, except for my own. The only energy and emotion I have is for people who I personally care about. Everything else is heresay, gossip, and a waste of time and maturity. I'd encourage all of you to do the same.

Peace.