Firstly, as to your last post, I may not agree with it, but it is pretty hysterical lol.

Now as for your four points:

1. Yes married people can file joint tax returns, because it is the "household" that is legally recognized. Just as it is with a legal "partnership" (in the business sense) that is recognized as one entity for tax purposes. The beauty of US tax laws, (convoluted as they may be) is that there is a multitude of ways to join 2 or more people together for tax purposes, i.e. marriage, civil unions, partnerships, and limited liability corporations, etc.

2. They can exchange tax free gifts just like any legally recognized family member can. But there is a ceiling to it, the number which escapes me now. To argue against that, would in a court of law, be like arguing against a tax free gift between brothers. And one is able to make a tax free gift to people outside of their family, but the ceiling is lower.

3. Transfers of assets from a deceased spouse are not beholden to the inheritance tax, because it is not viewed as an inheritance, but rather the second half of a partnership assuming control of the assets after dissolution of said partnership.

4. While there really is no way to argue against your fourth point, there really is no practical way for this right to be tranferred to single people. Unless you were able to set up some sort of vouching system where each person was allowed to vouch for one immigrant that can be brought over with no issues. But seeing as how the existing right is already abused pretty heavily, bestowing this right with no consequence onto every person in America, would lead to a massive influx of immigrants, and would send our whole beautifully beaurocratic system into a tailspin.

The problem with most of these scenarios, is that there is no practical way to transfer most of these rights to the unmarried, while the abolishment of these same rights would put many families into bankruptcy. Unfortunately, complete fairness in this respect has to yield to practicality in order to ensure that our already tenous grip on most people staying above the poverty line continues.

Leo, the power of attorney can be transferred to anyone with the drafting of a simple contract. Although when one is married it is automatically given to their spouse, you can still sign it over to someone else if you so choose.

[quote1249519901=JK713]
And you're right, you never said marriage is a bad thing, just that it isn't for someone "cursed" to be as enlightened as you.
[/quote1249519901]
Why thank you. No one called me enlightened before.

You're very welcome.

JK is vastly better informed than I and gave a thorough reply, but, also: don't all of these privileges kind of...make sense? Given that the vast majority of the population does this sort of life coupling, and given that the state has an established way of recognizing it, it would seem a bit perverse to withhold these sorts of accommodations.

Incentivization to me would look like...if you get married you get sent $500. I'd expect, conversely, to have to pay to get a marriage recognized by the gov't.

Maybe you could argue that there needs to be a better-established way for the state to recognize people as being closely bonded, but not married? Like really, really good friends could register as such and send one another tax-free gifts? I don't think there's much of a case to be made for the need to make it easier for people to assign their inheritances to themselves, so I'm not sure what else you'd be looking for...
I think this is a case where state policy reflects common practices much more than it determines them, and in a fairly common-sense way. Even setting aside any reason we might have to want to preserve this institution.

EDIT: That said, I have heard tell, on Leo's vein, of people being offered money to make babies. Probably in developed countries with falling birthrates. Maybe that's where the criticism should be directed?

De facto. !mistrust