Until the California Supreme Court’s final ruling on the legality of Proposition 8 is rendered, Equality California and the GLBT community need to focus on other major issues. Virtually all of our resources have been aimed of late at preserving same-sex marriage in California, but, even assuming that the high court upholds the Proposition 8 vote and we get another ballot measure, it’s simply too early to expect we will somehow persuade 600,000 Californians to change their minds. So let’s not let other issues slide.

On the marriage front, as I reported last week, California should follow the French example by renaming “domestic partnership” as “civil union” and allowing straight couples to register, as we did in the past. We should follow President Obama’s lead and push for federal benefits.

Equality California should ensure that children born into same-sex marriages are protected from discrimination. California allows couples to obtain what is called a “confidential marriage.” Unmarried couples (usually those who have children) may use the device if they have lived together for a term to “marry” without the usual requirements (health certificates, etc). Confidential marriages “legitimize” (stupid term) children born to couples out of wedlock. Equality California should work toward using them to enable children in same-sex unions to be able to say their parents are “married,” which would entitle them to the same rights as those that children of traditionally married couples have.

Of course same-sex couples should not be treated any differently from straight couples. But same-sex couples who have children have a much stronger basis for claiming marriage, because an implied obligation of marriage is a willingness to have children. Further, ensuring the rights of children in same-sex unions should be relatively uncontroversial, as even most Proposition 8 supporters agree that these children should not suffer because of society’s treatment of the same-sex union.

On the transgender front, we still need to make it easier for California residents to change the gender on their birth certificates without having to undergo gender re-assignment surgery or take drugs to alter their body chemistry. At the very least, people who present as a different gender should be able to marry a person of the opposite gender without suffering.

With regard to education, despite our laws against anti-gay abuse in schools, problems continue and litigating school anti-gay claims costs way too much. Local attorneys Paula Rosenstein and Bridget Wilson, for example, accrued more than $400,000 in costs and fees fighting such a case against Poway Union High School District. This is why the State Superintendent of Public Instruction or California Department of Fair Employment and Housing should be involved in resolving complaints against school districts.

And schools that cannot provide a safe place for GLBT students to learn should be required to treat such students as “special education” students. This would mean that because their education is impeded due to abuse at school, the district would be required to pay for special services required to afford them the same learning potential as their peers. This is the law in New Jersey and it makes great sense.

We also need to ensure that child-abuse reporting laws explicitly mandate reporters, such as school officials, to report both physical and mental abuse of gay students, or those perceived to be gay. And, because last year California courts emasculated the major state law that protects GLBT students from civil-rights abuses, we have to legislate that private religious schools that are open to all faiths (and nonbelievers) be open to GLBT students (and allies) if they continue to receive state nonprofit and tax-exempt status.

On the business front, a California court has held that businesses that openly discriminate against any group cannot be sued unless the plaintiff (victim) first seeks services. This is absurd. No person should have to make contact with a business that is open to “whites only.” Further, California courts have held that groups must suffer overt discrimination not just “disparate treatment or effect.” Imagine a business offering discounts or privileges to “married couples” only! Such policies have a disparate effect on gays and lesbians. They amount to anti-gay bias, but may not be actionable now because claims of “disparate treatment and effect” are not cognizable under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. For the sake of all minority groups, including the GLBT community, they need to be.