Nothing stops you from saying you’re legally married even if you aren’t.
Most of the Federal benefits apply to two separate individuals; things like estate tax, and being able to be buried with your spouse in a veterans cemetery, etc.
I’m struggling to see how you want these joint benefits to apply to one person.
Do you want to will yourself your own money? Be buried next to an empty plot?
This is how to pick up chicks in an alternate universe. (The anti-Scott Peterson.)
Well, it’s going to have to be redefined isn’t it. It no longer means “to be joined.”
Marriage isn’t a “business”. Have you come up with a single thing that you want but are not allowed to have as a single person?
Marriage is a right. Denying people their rights can destroy their sense of self-worth.
Another way a single person could be married would be to a corporation-like entity. 
Since when? If you don’t mean “joining together”, then go use another word…like “single”. You can’t “marry” one person for the same reason you can’t “build” one Lego block.
The OP may be sort of misunderstanding the ideas in this article “The high price of being single.” This lays out the numerous ways in which it is more expensive to be a single person than married. I don’t think, however, allowing single people to “get married” makes any sense, nor would it solve the problem of disparity. Note, this article mentions the “over 1000 federal laws” that benefit married people over singles, but I don’t think specific citations are given.
An example I can think of is travel. As a single person, I pay for a hotel room, the rates for which are derived with the assumption of two person occupancy. A couple (married or not is actually irrelevant with this example) in the next room might pay the exact same rate. Therefore, I am paying twice what the couple pays for the same room. And let’s assume the couple has two incomes from which to pay for this room. The cost of a hotel room is a significantly higher percentage of my income than it is for the couple. There is a book, Singled Out: How Singles are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After by Bella DePaulo, that also lays some of this out, with real numbers you can crunch and everything.
What I think the OP is calling for is for more equity in the current pricing system across many different industries. It was perhaps just a feeble way of expressing it.
Although I am guessing I will regret dealing with someone who uses the term “SSM activists”, I will add that the Supreme Court’s opinion in US v. Windsor (the DOMA case) does say:
“Though these discrete examples establish the constitutionality of limited federal laws that regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, DOMA has a far greater reach; for it enacts a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes and the whole realm of federal regulations.”
and
“Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits.”
The opinion goes on to discuss some of the multitude of laws that are affected by marriage, including health care benefits, bankruptcy protections, more severe penalties in the criminal law, tax benefits, determinations of financial aid eligibility, health care determinations, inheritance law, ethics requirements, and many more.
So there are serious, tangible reasons, beyond just love and affection, why people want to get married. And the laws surrounding marriage are numerous and far reaching, so getting the government out of “the marriage business” would take quite a bit of doing.
But I cannot recall any marriage laws or reasons to want to be married, nor am I aware of any in the opinion, that would apply to an imaginary person, and the OP is fucking ridiculous on its face.
But you don’t have to be married to someone else to take advantage of this situation-you just need to share the room with someone.
I’m assuming if you’re being denied marriage rights, it’s because you’re gay. I hope you are afforded that right very very soon.
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.
What if I don’t want to? Or I’ve been invited to a wedding (no plus one on the invitation)? I’ve been in several situations where I was forced to travel alone, even if I’d wanted to bring a companion along. You can’t just dismiss the concept because you think I should always travel with an escort.
BTW, I am not even defending the OP or suggesting anything at all other than some of the OP’s ideas came from the numerous articles I was able to find by Googling “Why is it more expensive to be single.” Bella DePaulo has been researching and writing about this for years. Feel free to go down the list in the article I linked to above and make suggestions as to how singles can mitigate the cost disparities. I’m open to your suggestions.
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?
This. I am completely down with. I couldn’t agree more. I see no reason why the State nor any Religion needs to be involved with or validate any personal relationship. But they both either want taxes or tithing, so… what ya gonna do?
It’s true, there are a lot of benefits to being married, but it’s not like you’ve been very clear about which benefits you’d like to be extended to single people. Why don’t you go down that list and discuss a few you think are most important to be extended for singles?
If you don’t want to? Do you think I can show up at a hotel and demand a 50% rate and tell them I didn’t want to bring my wife?
No, of course not. And I don’t get to demand a 50% discount because I couldn’t find anyone to come with me to my underwater basketweaving convention.
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.
Except then all you do is put everyone in the same position same sex couples are, who are very unhappy about it. Suddenly there’s no such thing as spousal rights & privileges; and we’ve seen again and again from homosexual couples how badly that screws people over.
Plus of course it would result in a massive backlash against homosexuals for “destroying marriage”; it would greatly set back their progress towards equality and probably get quite a few of them killed by the people who are enraged that they aren’t married anymore.
So you agree that single and married people are treated equally in your scenario?