Well, the same-sex and the anti-same-sex marriage advocates could find themselves sharing a bed soon. That’s because another initiative may soon be on the California ballot. This one could easily unite all those who support equality for all, regardless of relationship status. And, because of that, it could really anger those who simply support traditional marriage and divorce, and all the grief it causes.

The “Relationship Equality Initiative” would put an end to marital status discrimination of all kinds in California. In short, it would treat all couples as equals. California would no longer be involved in the “marriage” business.

In the future, it would allow persons who seek to enter into a partnership to do what gay folks do now: file a declaration of (domestic) partnership with the Secretary of State.

When filing the form, couples (of same or opposite sex) would indicate how they wished to share or split property. “Do you want to treat earnings as separate or co-property? Do you want to purchase homes as separate or joint tenants? Do you want to share joint legal and physical custody of any children of the partnership? Do you want to transfer a one-half interest in your current property to your partner?”

The form would indicate, unless otherwise stipulated, that if the couples have children, that they would each be co-parents.

The couples would indicate what happens on the dissolution of the partnership. The form would presume joint legal and physical custody of kids. Child support would be based upon state formulas. Partner support (formerly spousal support) would depend upon the terms of the partnership agreement.

California employers and insurers would be prohibited from taking action, which, in any way, shows favoritism or negativism based upon one’s relationship status. Insurers could not ask whether one is single or partnered. Employers and insurers would not be able to inquire as to one’s relationship status.

Employees would earn the same salary and benefits. Employers would only be able to give additional compensation to employees who support bona fide dependents.

California would no longer involve itself with religious approval of “certain” unions.

County clerks would no longer perform “civil marriage.” All such matters would now be subject to legal documents filed with the Secretary of State.

Certainly, individuals could still have religious ceremonies to solemnize their marriages. But the validity of the “family partnership” would no longer be dependent upon the state, or any religious group approval.

Divorce would be a thing of the past. Couples would have pre-determined how to dissolve their unions. In most cases, the couples would simply file a dissolution agreement with the Secretary of State. In more complex cases, couples could opt for mediation, with results forwarded to the Secretary of State.

In short, the state would look upon “family partnerships” no differently than “business partnerships.” Tax and estate laws would treat them all the same. Evidentiary privileges based upon marriage or domestic partnership would end. Businesses would not be able to show bias based upon the type of family partnership involved.

Sounds simple, fair and reasonable?

Who should support the Relationship Equality Initiative? Everybody should, because it’s equitable. But certainly all gay folks, none of whom can legally marry in California now – and are still subject to differing forms of marital status bias. All other single persons, a group that constitutes the majority of adults in California, should support the initiative as well. Religious conservatives who oppose government entanglement with freedom of religion (e.g., who can marry) should also support the law. The Catholic Church can perform marriages for heterosexuals, but the validity of the “family partnership” will in no way depend upon the blessing of any religious group. Republicans who oppose government involvement in the bedroom and family should also support it.

Who should oppose the initiative? Those people who like the idea that the government decides who gets to marry; and those who like the fact that only certain religions can marry people. Also opposing the initiative should be those who like the idea that dissolution requires court approval, a six-month waiting period, paying thousands in legal fees, and all trauma and emotion associated with splitting property, children and dogs.

So even if conservatives roll back domestic partnership and end any hope of “gay marriage” in California, they will have a tidal wave to contend with shortly thereafter….