# Is there any reason a single person can't be married? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041 "2013-06-27T16:27:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/61 "2013-06-28T19:31:58Z")
> [@Lion](#): > > Enormous tax breaks would be the chief one I’d imagine. Unless you can give a good argument for why married people deserve those tax breaks besides subsidizing the institution. The tax breaks go both ways. A married couple in which one spouse earns a lot more than the other do pay less tax than the two would together as individuals. But in a marriage in which both earn similar amounts, the tax burden is higher. > **[Marriage penalty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty)** > > The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher tax rate applicable to the lower-earning spouse when a married couple files jointly, as compared to if the spouses each filed his or her tax return using “single” status. There is also a marriage bonus that applies in other cases if the couple jointly is taxed at a lower effective tax rate than if they each filed using single statis. Multiple factors are involved, but in general, in the current U.S. system, single-income married coupl... ---
**Author:** ![Lion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/57b2e6/32.png) [@Lion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lion)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/62 "2013-06-28T19:46:27Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > The tax breaks go both ways. A married couple in which one spouse earns a lot more than the other do pay less tax than the two would together as individuals. But in a marriage in which both earn similar amounts, the tax burden is higher. > > [Marriage penalty - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty) True, although the penalty is typically not very large and only applies to those in the four highest tax brackets (essentially an extension of the progressive tax rate that applies to single filers) In the vast majority of cases I’d imagine there is a disparity between spousal incomes that would make filing jointly beneficial. My question is why two people filing jointly get a tax break over two people filing individually. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/63 "2013-06-28T19:56:20Z")
> [@Lion](#): > > Enormous tax breaks would be the chief one I’d imagine. Unless you can give a good argument for why married people deserve those tax breaks besides subsidizing the institution. Please give an example of an “enormous tax break” a married couple would get, and how you think it should be applied to a single person. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/64 "2013-06-28T20:44:19Z")
> [@DJ\_Motorbike](#): > > I am not against SSM. And this isn’t a gotcha in that sense. My point is that government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage. There shouldn’t be any penalties or benefits. Marriage should be a religious/private institution. > > I’ve heard from proponents of SSM that there are 1100 federal benefits to marriage that same-sex couples aren’t allowed. Is that figure accurate? I don’t know ask a SSM activist. The ability to file your income tax form as “married filing jointly” is a very minor concern. What you’re up against here is the fact that people tend to pair-bond. What happens to a person’s assets when one of them dies? With marriage, the other person owns those assets without having to go through a probate process. What happens when one is incapacitated and can’t make his own medical decisions? Those are the kinds of things that gay couples need to have just like opposite-sex couples. And they just don’t apply at all to a single person. ---
**Author:** ![Lion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/57b2e6/32.png) [@Lion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lion)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/65 "2013-06-28T20:50:33Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > Please give an example of an “enormous tax break” a married couple would get, and how you think it should be applied to a single person. The majority of married couples pay $1,300 less in taxes than they would if they were single. [Source](http://money.msn.com/family-money/the-myth-of-the-marriage-penalty-weston.aspx) Anecdotally, all of my married friends have a high earning male and a low earning or no earning wife. All of them report a decreased tax burden, sometimes as high as $4k-$5k saved. I’m not trying to determine how these benefits should be applied to single people, I’m asking why the concept of marriage is considered from a tax perspective at all. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/66 "2013-06-28T21:12:56Z")
> [@Lion](#): > > The majority of married couples pay $1,300 less in taxes than they would if they were single. [Source](http://money.msn.com/family-money/the-myth-of-the-marriage-penalty-weston.aspx) > > Anecdotally, all of my married friends have a high earning male and a low earning or no earning wife. All of them report a decreased tax burden, sometimes as high as $4k-$5k saved. > > I’m not trying to determine how these benefits should be applied to single people, I’m asking why the concept of marriage is considered from a tax perspective at all. It’s critical from the perspective of estate tax. That’s what the whole Supreme Court case was about, after all. The plaintiff didn’t get more than $300K in tax refunded to her because the IRS didn’t consider her married. ---
**Author:** ![Flywheel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Flywheel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flywheel)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/67 "2013-06-28T21:16:21Z")
Yesterday, upon the stair, I wed a man who wasn’t there… ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/68 "2013-06-28T21:23:12Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > The tax breaks go both ways. A married couple in which one spouse earns a lot more than the other do pay less tax than the two would together as individuals. But in a marriage in which both earn similar amounts, the tax burden is higher. > > [Marriage penalty - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty) In every case, they will still pay less than than a single person whose salary is equal their combined salary. Since we do tax by the household, this is one case where single households do pay more than married households do. Still, that doesn’t make the argument in the OP better. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/69 "2013-06-28T21:28:34Z")
> [@Lion](#): > > The majority of married couples pay $1,300 less in taxes than they would if they were single. [Source](http://money.msn.com/family-money/the-myth-of-the-marriage-penalty-weston.aspx) From your source: [quote] [ul][li]51% of married couples paid less tax jointly than if they had not been married, according to a 1996 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average amount these couples saved: $1,300.[/li] [li] **42% of married taxpayers paid more by filing jointly than they would have if they’d remained single, the office said. The average penalty: $1,380.** [/ul][/li][/quote] You seemed to ignore the second bullet. Assuming the remaining 7% of married couples paid the same either way, there’s barely an average benefit to being married. About $83 per year per couple, according to my (probably shitty) math. > [@Lion](#): > > I’m asking why the concept of marriage is considered from a tax perspective at all. Married couples tend to behave differently than single individuals - shared expenses, shared income, shared property. It’s a different situation which warrants a bit of consideration as to how the rules ought to apply to them. It’s not a flawless system, but that would probably be impossible to achieve. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/70 "2013-06-28T21:44:39Z")
> [@DJ\_Motorbike](#): > > I am not against SSM. And this isn’t a gotcha in that sense. My point is that government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage. There shouldn’t be any penalties or benefits. Marriage should be a religious/private institution. > > I’ve heard from proponents of SSM that there are 1100 federal benefits to marriage that same-sex couples aren’t allowed. Is that figure accurate? I don’t know ask a SSM activist. > > My answer is to remove all benefits from everyone rather than have Washington dictate to it’s mewling subjects how marriage is going to be defined for everyone from now on. > > I challenge anyone to give me a compelling reason why a single person should not be able to be considered married in a legal sense. > > 1. Would it hurt anyone? > 2. Would it cause society to collapse if Washington redefined marriage to include singles? Many of those 1100 benefits you are talking about are things like death benefits, primary rights dealing with medical decisions, issues dealing with privacy, the tax code provides tax free transfers between spouses in several cases, There are really no benefits I can think of that married couples get that would apply if you married yourself. > [@DJ\_Motorbike](#): > > That was the figure I heard thrown out by SSM activists. > > Anyway, just being able to say you’re legally married is in itself a benefit. How so? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/71 "2013-06-28T23:25:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Even though this thread is a particularly dumb way to make the point, it once again proves that problems related to marriage laws are best resolved by government getting it’s nose out of people’s personal business and not recognizing marriages at all. I’m not seeing how it demonstrates that at all. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/72 "2013-06-28T23:46:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Many of those 1100 benefits you are talking about are things like death benefits, primary rights dealing with medical decisions, issues dealing with privacy, the tax code provides tax free transfers between spouses in several cases, There are really no benefits I can think of that married couples get that would apply if you married yourself. Yeah, this. Every benefit I can think of that the laws currently grant are nonsensical when applied to a single person. When the ‘married’ single dies, the ‘spouse’ dies at exactly the same instant, and so has no need of surviving spouse benefits or insurance payouts. If the ‘married’ single is incapacitated, so is the ‘spouse’, and so is _also_ unable to make medical, legal, or financial decisions. When the ‘married’ single shops at the military base PX, the ‘spouse’ is already there, getting the same cheaper price on everything s/he buys. When the ‘married’ single is ill or injured, so is the ‘spouse’, and is getting treated for it at the same time, for no additional cost. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum… The OP (the poster) _may_ have a valid point, but the actual argument made in the OP (the post) is a really ridiculous way to try to illustrate it. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/73 "2013-06-29T00:31:03Z")
> [@Dogzilla](#): > > Oh, and let me know if you can split a room with me this summer. I’ve been thinking of visiting my parents for a week or so. You don’t mind spending a week in central Ohio with people you’ve never met, just so I can save 50% off my hotel room, right? Oh, yeah. On reviewing the thread after my last post, I noticed this that I thought to respond to, but not enough to actually post. But, since I posted anyway, in for a penny, in for a pound…: I’m game. I went to school in Steubenville, and I was all over Ohio on ‘Road Trips’ at the time. Wherever you’re going might make a nice base (if it’s within 3 hour’s drive) for ‘Day Trip’ visiting _all_ the places I’d like to see again (including Salt Fork State Park, where I broke my first bone). It will _certainly_ be within ‘Day Trip’ distance of _some_ of the places I’d like to revisit. I might even be able to come up with sufficient cash to do it, if I can get away when you are going there. PM me. We _might_ be able to share the expenses! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/74 "2013-06-29T03:19:36Z")
Hey, you two, get a room. . . . Oh, wait. . . . ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/75 "2013-06-29T11:29:10Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > What you’re up against here is the fact that people tend to pair-bond. Exactly. It’s like legally recognizing the bond of parent and child; it’s the legal recognition of an instinctive human relationship, not just some arbitrary association. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/76 "2013-06-29T18:23:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Exactly. It’s like legally recognizing the bond of parent and child; it’s the legal recognition of an instinctive human relationship, not just some arbitrary association. But it is arbitrary, unless you want to define ‘pair bonding’ as to involve more than two, and little bonding. Marriage through human history has been equivalent to men owning women, often more than one. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/77 "2013-06-29T21:32:26Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Yeah, this. Every benefit I can think of that the laws currently grant are nonsensical when applied to a single person. When the ‘married’ single dies, the ‘spouse’ dies at exactly the same instant, and so has no need of surviving spouse benefits or insurance payouts. If the ‘married’ single is incapacitated, so is the ‘spouse’, and so is _also_ unable to make medical, legal, or financial decisions. When the ‘married’ single shops at the military base PX, the ‘spouse’ is already there, getting the same cheaper price on everything s/he buys. When the ‘married’ single is ill or injured, so is the ‘spouse’, and is getting treated for it at the same time, for no additional cost. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum… > > The OP (the poster) _may_ have a valid point, but the actual argument made in the OP (the post) is a really ridiculous way to try to illustrate it. Right. The argument about the 1000+ “benefits” or legal entitlements exists as a function of the inequality where certain entitlements vest upon the legal spouse of a person, but \*not \*anyone _else_ who is just as much their life partner but happens to have a different form of relationship. The OP also as pointed out conflated a number of things that are not legal entitlements from marriage. Developments are families-only/singles-only based on \*private \*covenants. Singles get charged higher insurance premiums than marrieds of the same age and sex because \*actuarially \*they’re shown to be lower risks, that’s just the market. And so on. In the end, there has to be some sort of legal order under which the formation and operation of family units, which among most human populations are based on pair-bonding at some pointy, are regulated and disputes about it adjudicated, which does not require reinventing the wheel with each contract and each case. Call it sacramental matrimony, civil marriage, domestic society, mancommunal association, jelly doughnut, gazbofloom; you’ll have to call it \*something \*before the law. And guess what, very shortly after that’s established, the common laypeople’s vernacular for this joining will become: “married”. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/78 "2013-06-29T22:09:02Z")
> [@](#): > > But it is arbitrary, unless you want to define ‘pair bonding’ as to involve more than two, and little bonding. > Marriage through human history has been equivalent to men owning women, often more than one. OK, it’s hilarious seeing someone say this to **Der Trihs**. But even in societies where the wife was considered effectively the property of the husband, the norm was still one wife per man, and there was usually some sort of emotional bond between them. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/79 "2013-06-29T23:40:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Many of those 1100 benefits you are talking about are things like death benefits, primary rights dealing with medical decisions, issues dealing with privacy, the tax code provides tax free transfers between spouses in several cases, There are really no benefits I can think of that married couples get that would apply if you married yourself. Are the specific benefits themselves all that matter? How about the social acceptance that comes with the term “marriage”? ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041/80 "2013-06-30T00:53:05Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, it’s hilarious seeing someone say this to **Der Trihs**. > > But even in societies where the wife was considered effectively the property of the husband, the norm was still one wife per man, and there was usually some sort of emotional bond between them. Whether or not there was an emotional bond, there was always an economic bond. The laws regarding marriage are about economics, not love, and about how the law should treat property held by a household. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-a-single-person-cant-be-married/662041.md?page=5)