Equality California, which lobbies on behalf of GLBT issues, can certainly take credit for getting California lawmakers to pass AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. But Equality should have followed New York’s lead by giving Gov. Schwarzenegger a bill he can sign. It’s a waste of resources to put a bill back on his desk that’s destined for a veto, and doing so does little to help us in court.

Equality California should have capitalized on present California law to further its aim of legalizing same-sex marriage. Instead, it presented a bill that is no different from the Marriage Bill Gov. Schwarzeneger felt obliged to veto in 2005, compelled as he is to honor voters, who made their position clear in Proposition 22.

Current law in California does allow transgender individuals to obtain a marriage license, provided they show proof of sex re-assignment surgery. It is, of course, inhumane to require sex-reassignment in order to marry, but there is an opportunity inherent in the current law to move us all closer to recognizing same-sex unions.

If California were follow New York’s lead and allow marriage on the basis of a medical certificate or letter indicating identification with a gender other than that assigned on one’s birth certificate, rather than to require sex-reassignment surgery, we would be closer to our goal.

Why? Doing so would show that marriage is not about procreation, since such transgender couples cannot produce a sperm and/or egg.

Hopefully, courts and lawmakers could then take the next step.

Anyway, we’re all hoping this all becomes moot when the California Supreme Court rules, as I expect it will, that California law cannot engage in bias based upon “sexual orientation” or “gender.”

After all, the state has no right to decide and order the lives of consenting adults. The Constitution protects the autonomy of individuals to engage in intimate association.

Individuals who choose to form an intimate relationship with another person or persons, should not be subject to the “unequal” protection of the law. Federal and state officials should simply keep their noses out of our lives. If we want any kind of government help, it should simply be to allow us to register our “partnership” with the state, thereby informing hospitals, creditors and government agencies how we hold property and divide earnings. We can agree to end our contract upon own terms, without a court order and the need for attorneys. Such unions should not receive tax subsidies.

Such a system is called “domestic partnership” law, and it should replace our traditional “marriage” law as the preferred system for handling domestic relations.

The Chief Justice of the California Supreme indicated in a recent case that the Court is aware of the problems with our current family law, and it is possible that the Court and the U.S. Supreme Court could decide that federal and state law cannot award marriage benefits to couples without also recognizing and providing benefits to couples in non-marital partnerships. Doing so violates not just equal protection, but also one’s right to engage in intimate association. Further, those who choose not to marry end up subsidizing those who do.

America is no longer about traditional marriage leading to procreation. That’s an outdated model. It’s been a long time since the majority of couples married, had at least two children, and since men worked at the office while women stayed in the house. Although that was once such the norm that the government could presume that wives and children were “dependents” and thus entitled to tax subsidies, today the government should treat individuals as, well, individuals. If a man is supporting a wife and kids, yes, those are bona fide “dependents.” And if a woman is supporting her wife and kids, they, too are bona fide dependents.

Isn’t this obvious? It will be to a majority on the California Supreme Court and, possibly, in future, on the U.S. Supreme Court.