In January, California law will prohibit insurance carriers from charging gays and lesbians in domestic partnerships more than straight, married couples. But the rest of us – the non-domestically partnered – will still pay more for insurance. Why? Simply because carriers can charge single people more.

The California Supreme Court will consider whether state law prohibits bias based upon marital status. This is a case brought by a lesbian couple denied the same privileges at a golf club as a married couple.

The court could rule that current state law does not cover “marital status” bias practiced by businesses.

Rather than push for laws that further equalize the rights of GLBT couples with married couples, how about ending marital and relationship status discrimination all together?

I’ve suggested for the past few years that simply extending marital rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples does nothing to end bias against singles. It just perpetuates it, and it’s wrong.

Ironically, now that we are getting something akin to marriage rights for gays and lesbians in California, many couples are not that pleased with the concept of the quasi-marriage. For example, starting in 2005, gay and lesbian couples will have to re-register as domestic partners. And when they do, they will quickly discover that state law will require them to share their income, support each other (while partnered and afterwards), and they will need a judicial declaration before they can end their relationship. In short, at least in the eyes of California law, they will be somewhat equal to straight couples.

While domestic partners will receive many of the benefits of marriage, they will not be entitled to federal tax benefits.

We all agree that same-sex couples should be treated the same as married couples. But none of us agree that, just because two people are married or domestically partnered they are entitled to cheaper car, health and life insurance.

Many of the gay and lesbian couples will not re-register. And what will certainly happen is that they will no longer qualify for domestic partner benefits because they won’t be “domestically partnered” under California law. They will be single again.

Why not re-register?

First, many couples fear having to go to court to get a judicial decree ending their relationship. They don’t want their personal lives exposed to public view. Most judges in this state are clueless about gay norms. Some support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as well as the Boy Scouts’ ban on the GLBT community.

Gay and lesbian couples have a very efficient system for ending their relationships now. It’s called “goodbye.” Imagine having to spend six months or longer in litigation when your “domestic partnership” lasted only a few months.

Second, many gay and lesbian couples, especially those where one or both are professionals, fear that their property and income would be used to pay for debts (including civil judgments) incurred by their partners.

Third, many in our community fear they would be forced to support a “mistake” for the rest of their lives.

For my gay friends in their 40s and 50s, it may be safe to say that most have had at least three long-term relationships. Imagine three alimony checks to write every month.

Now, it is true that couples could enter into special contracts to alter the conditions of their domestic partnership. And that’s what I would recommend. But be clear that the courts may not enforce those contracts.

For example, a court invalidated a prenuptial agreement when a man’s former wife became an invalid. The court said it was unconscionable to enforce a contract limiting his obligation to support his former spouse. The same result should occur if a former partner developed AIDS, breast or ovarian cancer.

Gay and lesbian couples think similarly with straight couples. And it’s no secret that straight couples are not marrying.

More straight couples are living together than ever before. They are waiting longer to marry. When they do marry, the marriages are shorter in duration.

Ironically, the only groups trying to preserve the institution of marriage are Christian conservatives and gay leaders – now that’s a match made in heaven.