> Doesn't make a lot of sense for us to subsidize people to do something which they are supposedly doing because they want to.
Sure it does. Long-term couples tend to take care of each other's health and wellbeing. Marriage is a way of recognising that long-term care relationship.
In countries with any kind of government funded or subsidised health system (or even a private health system based on insurance), those benefits of being married are costs that would otherwise be borne by the rest of society.
When I'm old, having a partner to look after me means I'm less likely to need to go to hospital or need doctor's visits. I'm less likely to be unhappy, so more likely to be economically productive. If I need to take time off work, or retrain, or whatever, two partners are able to rely on each other for both financial and moral support.
Social conservatives are right in the sense that marriage is for plenty of people a form of social "glue" that holds people together. The state has good reason to want people to be held together like that - because it makes citizens happier, more productive, less likely to need public handouts, more likely to be able to raise children successfully or produce taxable wealth - and so on and so on.
It'd be difficult to measure the economic benefit of marriage to the state, but the actual economic benefit of being married is pretty minimal (estate/inheritance taxes seem like the biggest benefit) compared to the benefit to society and to the state.
Most if not all of those things that marriage does are also applicable to same-sex couples, incidentally.
> Long-term couples tend to take care of each other's health and wellbeing ... because it makes citizens happier, more productive, less likely to need public handouts ...
Citation needed. Plus, the benefits have to outweigh the costs: tax breaks, unhappy folks (would that cause health issues?) stuck in the bad marriages etc.
I am guessing availability for comparatively stable social unit for raising kids might be a large enough positive, but the benefits should then be for families who raise kids, potentially scaled with the number of kids (don't know if that's already the case). Even the other benefits you mentioned, have nothing to do with marriage - civil unions (or even group of not-romantically-involved-with-each-other friends) can make citizens happier, productive, less likely to need handouts, raise children well (if single parents can, why not multiple parents?) and produce taxable wealth.
Sure it does. Long-term couples tend to take care of each other's health and wellbeing. Marriage is a way of recognising that long-term care relationship.
In countries with any kind of government funded or subsidised health system (or even a private health system based on insurance), those benefits of being married are costs that would otherwise be borne by the rest of society.
When I'm old, having a partner to look after me means I'm less likely to need to go to hospital or need doctor's visits. I'm less likely to be unhappy, so more likely to be economically productive. If I need to take time off work, or retrain, or whatever, two partners are able to rely on each other for both financial and moral support.
Social conservatives are right in the sense that marriage is for plenty of people a form of social "glue" that holds people together. The state has good reason to want people to be held together like that - because it makes citizens happier, more productive, less likely to need public handouts, more likely to be able to raise children successfully or produce taxable wealth - and so on and so on.
It'd be difficult to measure the economic benefit of marriage to the state, but the actual economic benefit of being married is pretty minimal (estate/inheritance taxes seem like the biggest benefit) compared to the benefit to society and to the state.
Most if not all of those things that marriage does are also applicable to same-sex couples, incidentally.