In striking down the voter initiative that prevented California’s same-sex couples from marrying, the California Supreme Court did not render domestic partnership obsolete: All same-sex couples registered as domestic partners will remain so; however, the future of domestic partnership seems cloudy, at best.

Employers, for example, will probably argue that they should not have to provide domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples because now these couples can marry.

And, if voters approve putting an initiative on the November ballot that would amend the Constitution and outlaw same-sex marriage, it’s possible that a court could rule they not only killed gay marriage, but also anything akin to marriage, such as domestic partnership. A few weeks ago, for example, a Michigan high court ruled that when voters approved a measure banning same-sex marriage, they also, knowingly or not, prevented the state from recognizing any “marriage-type” relationship involving unmarried couples, which effectively rescinded domestic partnership benefits for state employees.

But for the foreseeable future, same-sex couples may choose to file for domestic partnership status, or they may marry, as of June 17.

Assuming that couples do begin to marry in June, they should understand the legal consequences of marriage because, unfortunately, most of the time, with marriage comes divorce or dissolution. Consequently, getting married requires some education.

The 49,000 couples now living in domestic partnerships (registered before or after January 1, 2005) already know what their rights are and will find marriage requirements substantially similar.

That’s because, in drafting the domestic partnership law, lawyers wanted to make domestic partnership as close to marriage as possible; in fact, they put in more requirements. (For example, domestic partners have to live together and have an “intimate” relationship, while married couples don’t have to live together or have sex.) Also, dissolution of a domestic partnership has to be court approved, just as does a marriage dissolution.

Anyone who is not in a domestic partnership, however, and who is thinking of getting married, should see an attorney, both jointly with a partner and via separate counsel, so that they will know precisely what their rights will be compared to what they are now.

For example, a live-in boyfriend who provides domestic services (household cleaning, cooking, and companionship) is entitled to compensation for such services. But such services are implicit in a marriage contract and therefore not compensable.

Also, all property acquired during a marriage is presumed to be jointly owned. Property acquired before marriage is the separate property of each partner.

There are also support obligations that occur during marriage and may continue after dissolution.

It’s better to know these things during times of bliss than to find out about them during dissolution.