No. 46 · CINDY

Seems little PR of late concerning this lawsuit. Maybe Martina is actually mediating and realizing one cannot just use someone for eight years to serve them and toss them to the wayside.

She lost a lot of endorsements in the 1970s and 1980s when she ran up the most impressive win streak in tennis history because she was out and proud. That didn’t stop her girlfriend from trying to take her money back then, either.

I’ve never felt entitled to my boyfriends’ paychecks, especially money earned before I met them, so why should Martina have to put up with that crap in the name of gay equality?

This woman is a gold-digger plain and simple. I wonder how she treated her husband? What was the situation there? This is a person of questionable character.

It wasn’t a marriage, according to these stories. It was some kind of semi-official quasi-legal partnership agreement. And — yes, there’s plenty of evidence from over the years that Navratilova isn’t kind to ex-girlfriends, but why should we now expect her to treat the dissolved partnership as if it had been a marriage when they were denied the benefits of marriage while they were together?

Couples often get nasty toward each other in a divorce. I see no reason to expect that gay couples will be different when put into that in-extremis situations. But this does not appear to be a divorce. It’s the dissolution of a complex partnership.

It wasn’t a civil marriage while they were together, so what’s wrong with her lawyers arguing that it shouldn’t be treated as a civil marriage now that they’re splitting up?

You seem to believe that courts should treat gay couples as though they were in some sort of common-law marriage (which is recognized in some states). I’m not sure that’s the case in the states where this couple lives. But even it it is, it’s a very strange legal angle to take in an attempt to get toward marriage equality.

For those with reading comprehension difficulties: Layton is not asking for half of everything, just half of what they aquired during their relationship. That’s standard and normal in cases of divorce, and also, in some jurisdictions when straight partners have co-habitated for a long period of time, but haven’t married.

And that includes when the woman stayed home, and the man went to work. Because men used to argue that the woman contributed nothing by working at home (making a home, raising the kids, etc).

Remember Amanda Bearse? She pulled the same sort of sh*t on behalf of her new partner when they fought the woman’s previous partner on child custody issues. Claimed the non-biological mother was not a ‘real’ mother, and shouldn’t have any rights to the kid, including visitation.

And Martina has the greatest body I’ve ever seen. *wink

Aside from opposite gender couples, in what way do you mean that “gay marriages will never be the same if you try to make them look that way”? Which way are you talking about exactly? Even if they were legally married, it wouldn’t change anything, 50% of straight marriages end in divorce as a result of financial problems and the rest well, adultery for the most part. Most divorces are messy when it comes to money. Martina is no different than anyone else. So you would have to paint opposite sex domestically partnered couples (those who chose not to marry) when you make singular statements like that about gay couples, unmarried or not. What does it matter if the couples are same sex or opposite sex? Or do you have an underlying religious reason perhaps? Your statement is flawed.

Martina looks just as unnattractive as Toni. If you had to choose who looks better if would easily be a flip of the coin. I have always admired Martina for her tennis game, but I always thought in the looks department that Martina was batting .000.

My question is what did Judy Nelson see in Martina beyond star tennis player?

No wonder Martina’s guards had to remove that witch with force…She’s a freakin’ bulldog!

If a person judges all gays by one or two, it means that person was never gay-friendly in the first place.

Look, I think there are several completely different arguments here and conflated none of them makes sense. Seperately they do.

1. Under current federal law and DOMA, these two are not married nor do they exist as partners.

2. Under state law, in Florida, these two are not married nor do they exist as partners.

3. Under state law in New Hampshire, where they reportedly had a civil union, they are now considered married.

4. Regardless of 1-3, Navatilova is morally obligated to share some of her wealth with her ex partner/wife/etc.

5. Navratilova is NOT a GAY or LESBIAN HERO, LEADER, or ROLE MODEL. She is simply a bitter rich bitch who is trying to screw her ex out of the money she deserves.

6. Navratilova will ignore all above except #3.

7. Why do we give a flying fuck what she does anyways?

Topher, I completely agree.

It underlines the “separate but (not) equal” status of gay marriage.

Of course, it’s irrelevant whether the ex-wives are gold-diggers or not. The fact that a man’s ex-wife may be a gold-digger does nothing to alter her legal rights to his property.

How many divorces can you think of that aren’t a little messy? The “wronged” – as in the one who didn’t bring big cash into the relationship, always has a string of allegations and is “shocked” that it came “out of the blue”…

I think she took a good hard look and said I hvae been screwed over enough times and this time I’m not taking it.
And I think she has a better perspective on their relationship than you do!

Act within the law Martina … that is all you are obligated to do.

So this is another Queerty, smear the queer post. Is there a “Smear the Queer” blog? If not, you could consider a subsite?

She made a lot of millions through hard work and excellence. She’s entitled to hang on to them.

She can’t hurt gay marriage by arguing she wasn’t in one if she WASN’T!

While Martina might be a tad on the selfish and greedy side, and, as noted divorces are often messy nasty things, this hardly makes her Gay Rights public enemy #1.