One of the most annoying things about being in a domestic partnership is how often there is no valid option for me on forms requiring a relationship status. I'm not single and I'm not married.

The most glaring example of this is at tax filing time where I have to check a box saying I am "single," not "Married, filing separately." For taxes, aside from the obvious fact that I'm not single, it also has a significant impact on the amount of taxes I pay. With my partner returning to school, this will become even more egregious--if we were married and I was the only person earning an income, my tax rate would decrease significantly. But since we're partnered, and neither the state nor federal government allow us to file jointly, my income tax rate stays the same.

But, at least in California, this is no longer the case. Schwarzenneger signed SB 1827, allowing domestic partners in California to file joint taxes.

Supporters and opponents note that in California, joint tax filing was essentially the only right given to married couples in the state that was not provided to domestic partnerships. Now, in the eyes of California law, our relationship is treated more or less the same.

Of course, because the federal government (and the Defense of Marriage Act, we still can't file federal taxes jointly. Because you transfer information from your federal to your state tax forms, this means that we have to fill out our federal forms twice. Once for "real," both indicating we're single. Then once as if we were filing jointly so that we can move the information over to the state forms. (What I'm least looking forward to in this exercise is finding out how many thousands of dollars extra we're paying because of this situation.)

Incidentally, DoMA also means that there are many federal benefits that straight married couples get that aren't offered to me and my partner. Even if we were married in, say, Massachusetts.

There is the argument that the government shouldn't be in the business of giving special rights to married/domestically partnered couples at all, and that doing so discriminates against single people. If the tax code is reworked so that this is the case, I wouldn't shed many tears.

Of course, the politics of this is interesting too. When I first heard about the bill, I didn't have much faith that Schwarzenegger would sign it. But part of me wondered if the newer, more moderate-looking Schwarzenegger might not kowtow to the religious right and realize that the current state of things was discriminatory. When I woke up this morning to find that he'd signed it, I gave a little cheer and thought to myself "maybe he's not such a bad guy after all."

It has been harder to feel the same rage toward the guy that I did during the recall, during the 2004 election when he was supporting Bush and appeared at the Republican convention, and during the disastrous propositions he tried to push through last year. This feeling isn't just because of him signing this bill; it seems to come from the fact that he at least appears to have learned being right-wing won't get him too far in this state and that it makes sense to govern from the center. Of course, after he wins re-election (which looks likely), there's nothing stopping him from switching back.

And, of course, Schwarzenegger did veto the gay marriage bill that got to him, using the twisted logic that the courts should decide the matter (the opposite of the right-wing position when the courts are favoring gay rights). Angelides, on the other hand, has said that he would sign a gay marriage bill. So, on this issue, Angelides still comes out ahead. But, I'm not as disappointed with the current state of the polls as I once might have been.