June 30, 2009
Condemn Martina Navratilova’s Duplicitous Divorce — But Relish the Potential Benefit to the Rest of Us
Before we get to the issue at hand:
There is no question tennis legend Martina Navratilova, in the midst of yet another ugly and expensive divorce, is
On the surface, that’s despicable. However, if she succeeds, the result promises to be a very good thing indeed for the rest of us, and for The Cause.
Allow me to explain — without for one second excusing, defending, or even doubting that Martina’s shameful actions are motivated solely by money.
You see, folks, as long as full marriage recognition is withheld from us, the more flexibility we have in using the laws against us, against those very laws. If “The People” want us to be as accountable as they are, then they must recognize our marriages as being exactly equal to theirs — or else shut up when we use loopholes left wide open to us. (Can you say “DOMA”?)
Or, as I just said, in a rare moment of brevity and succinctness, to my lovely wife:
If you don’t give us the right, you can’t demand we take the responsibility.
Keep this thought in mind — that Martina’s duplicitous money grab may only benefit the rest of us in the long run, even if, as Queerty puts it, she may be “Public Enemy No. 1 to GLBTs right now”:
Is Martina Navratilova Actually
Bad For Gay Rights?Tennis star Martina Navratilova has arguably done more for gay visibility (aka “mainstreaming”) than any other athlete or celebrity — and did so at a time when it was particularly inconvenient. So come come she’s suddenly become one of the community’s biggest problems? …
So how come Navratilova might just be Public Enemy No. 1 to GLBTs right now?
Because she’s exploiting the current status of same-sex marriage for her own personal advantage.
Navratilova is in the middle of a messy (and growing even more so) divorce from Toni Layton. But in order to keep Layton’s hands off Navratilova’s fortune, the tennis star’s attorneys are arguing that their relationship doesn’t qualify as a marriage by heterosexual terms, and thus Layton shouldn’t be entitled to her share of things. Layton, naturally, sees things differently, and is filing a domestic partnership lawsuit in Florida, which Salon notes is a “deeply inhospitable legal climate” for gay-anything.
Close watchers of Navratilova will know this isn’t a new tactic: Back in 1991, ex-lover Judy Nelson sued her for $7.5 million, and even had videotapes of two of their wedding ceremonies to show a court. The pair settled out of court, reportedly for around $3 million.
For Navratilova, the issue is a personal and financial one, and she’s using any means necessary to get her way in court. This includes trivializing her relationship with Layton as being “sub-par” when compared to “true, traditional marriage,” even though the pair were together for nearly eight years. Layton maintains she was, out of the blue, kicked out of Navratilova’s life and even locked out of their homes — and insists the pair agreed to a 50/50 split of everything, which is why Layton wants parts of the four multimillion dollar estates, cars, and jewelry they purchased while together.
But for someone who proclaims to be such an advocate of gay rights, Navratilova is throwing the fight for same-sex marriage under the bus. By trying to hang on to her millions, she has (what we’re guessing is) the unintended effect of magnifying the triteness of gay relationships. That same-sex relationships are lesser than male-female relationships is Navratilova’s entire talking point. …
More at the link.
Again, I’m not forgiving Martina’s obvious duplicity — it’s shameful and downright despicable. (That’s a difficult thing for me to write, by the way, as I have long admired and just plain liked Martina, even if I think she has the worst judgment in the world when it comes to longterm relationships.) And, as our regular readers know, “optimism” is a foreign concept to me.
But I do believe that once this latest ugly chapter in Martina’s life is closed, whether she wins or loses, she will have unwittingly exposed yet another reason same-sex marriages — not domestic partnerships, not civil unions, but marriages — must be recognized and dealt with on the very same playing field as opposite-sex marriages, if for no other reason than the benefit to society at large: to prevent anyone from playing fast and loose with the law.
And, of course, that only benefits us.
One more time:
If you don’t give us the right, you can’t demand we take the responsibility.
Tweet This Post! 
Filed Under: Celebrities, Civil Rights, Florida, Marriage, Sports & Recreation
