In California, registered domestic partners (RDPs) are facing a new dimension: "married" tax filing. RDPs have to file either as married jointly or married singly. Two things complicate the process. One is that California ties its tax forms to federal tax forms. The complication is that RDPs cannot file joint tax returns to the IRS. So RDPs have to file at least two different federal returns. The "real" one that goes to Uncle Sam, and the "RDP" one that is filed with California's Franchise Tax Board. The second complication is that California is a community property state. I.e., half of what he has is yours and half of what you have is his, if it was acquired or earned after the partnership was registered. This includes income. So, for example, if Sue earns $50,000 and Amy earns $90,000, then they would both report an income of $70,000 (half the sum of both incomes). How that gets report on a 1040 was new to me, and will likely be new to lots of RDPs. Even if my parents were alive, I couldn't ask them because like a lot of folks from their generation, they lived with one income (dad's).

The tax situation gets more and more complicated the more complicated the income situation is. I pity someone who is self-employed or who has lots of properties or investments. For me and mine it hasn't been too bad (so far). But one thing that does make the tax thing a bore is that the Feds don't recognize it while the state does. So we have to play by one set of rules closer to home and another for the Feds. That's tedious and not fair. Though sadly, I don't see IRS recognition of same sex couples in this country any time soon.

Christianist rabble-rousers need gay couples as villains. If gays do not even want to get married, the christianists will not be able to rant and pray about them. A whole part of their ranting, preposterous way of life will be torn asunder.

There's an assumption running throughout this article that civil unions are a form of marriage. Even the title of the article, which probably wasn't written by the author but is nonetheless on the same page, suggests this ("Same-sex couples fought for the right to wed. So why are they deciding not to get hitched?") Um...as far as I now, there's only one state in the union where they have the right to get "hitched."

The author of this piece, no doubt, thinks she's pro-gay rights. But, reinforcing the commonly held assumption that civil unions are a step towards marriage actually does the work of preventing social change.

Without it -- and on a national, not state-by-state level -- those LGBT couples who get married are doing so in an equivalent of marriage only, even if it's equal marriage on the state level.

So, yes, not everyone would want to do that. And those that do are doing it for reasons other than achieving full equality now, which, of course, they aren't.

Some people love each other so much, they'll take what they can get. Others want to help advance the cause. Others need the protections that they can at least have now.

But in no way whatsoever does a supposed lack of interest in marriage equivalents now translate to a lack of interest by the majority of LGBT people in equality forever.

Timbuktom: "If gays do not even want to get married, the christianists will not be able to rant and pray about them."

Ah, but they've got this covered. See, if gays don't want to get married, then they get to rant about how gays are promiscuous and don't want to form lasting unions. If the gay folk do want to get married, then they're a threat to the sanctity of traditional marriage.

In this way the money-making "Family Values" arm of the Religious Right gets to have its cake and eat it too. Isn't that nice for them?

Most of the negatives in this article are problems for the "male", primary wage earner in the marriage.

Straight men have known about these drawbacks all along.

Welcome to the marriage strike.

Marriage is for straight women who have no problem parasitising their husbands' incomes after divorce.

There may be other gay people like me who are torn on the issue. Of course I want equality in areas like marriage and serving in the US military. However, just because I don't want to be legally discriminated against doesn't mean marriage or military service are something I'd want.

Marriage isn't working at all well anymore as a straight institution. Many people who get married seem to have temporary insanity, which wears off within a few years. The success rate is less than 50%. All breakups are painful, but adding lawyers and the government amplifies the pain and problems. A failed marriage is one of, if not the most, painful things one can go through. The cost of what's now usually expected for a middle class wedding is horrifying. Why exactly would I want that?

Most of the reasons to get married are because too many laws are structured in ways that give married partners preference. It would be better for everyone if the laws were changed to treat all people the same whether or not they are married. That would leave the societal brainwashing of girls to dream of marrying Prince Charming to be the other lure. There is no good reason to give incentives for marriage or having babies anymore. The concept was based on having/controlling women, and it would be a score for femanism to stop encouraging the practice. Get a religious blessing for your relationship if you wish, but we'd all be better off ultimately if we kept the government out of it.

Of course when there is suddenly an option for marriage or even a civil union, you'll have some trailblazers who will happily go first for various reasons. Some of them have had issues like those in the article like 'can't divorce limbo', which haven't been reported on enough, and such problems will discourage some others. It is unfortunate, but not unexpected.