Why does the government incentivise marriage?
<p>With the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases allowing gay marriage, and the government never stopping people from getting married who couldn't have children, the last vestiges of the "marriage is for raising children" argument have gone by the wayside. </p>

<p>What is the government's interest in marriage? </p>

<p>What is stopping me from finding a poor college student, marrying him for the tax incentives (and him me for the health insurance), and breaking it off when it is no longer financially or emotionally convenient? </p>

<p>I ask from both a practical standpoint (can I do it) and a philosophical standpoint (if I tried this and it were challenged all the way to the supreme court, what would the likely out come be).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>What is stopping me from going and finding a poor college student, marrying them for the tax incentives (and them me for the health insurance), and breaking it off when it is no longer financially or emotionally convenient?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Nothing, go for it.</p>

<p>Breaking it off, i.e. getting a divorce, leaves questions of who gets what assets - you will need to consult local laws for your jurisdiction and consider whether a prenuptial agreement is necessary to keep you and your partner honest. But assuming both parties are honest and don't try to cheat each other, there's no reason the arrangement you describe wouldn't work.</p>

<p>Why politicians create incentives for it may be more of a question of politics than of law. Practically speaking, the incentives may have been imagined at a time when procreation was the purpose of marriage and the incentives were aimed at promoting that. It may continue to exist out of mere political inertia - nobody wants to be the politician that takes away tax benefits from the constituency.</p>

<h3>Why does the government incentivise marriage?</h3>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/encyclopedia/Marriage-Penalty.cfm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;There is no explicit federal policy in the United States for penalizing or subsidizing marriage.&quot;</a></p>
<p>...</p>
<p>[T]he combined tax liability of two single people often increased with marriage. Since the reforms of 1969, numerous modifications have been made to the income tax laws that have altered the magnitude of the marriage penalty. However, most recent evidence documents that many couples still face a tax penalty because they are married.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the marriage penalty</a> for more details. (Two other articles: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marriage-penalty-couples-income.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>, <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/encyclopedia/Marriage-Penalty.cfm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2</a>)</p>
<h3>What is the government's interest in marriage?</h3>
<p>Marriage is a fundamental right. That is the government's interest in marriage.</p>
<p>This was stated most recently in Obergefell v Hodges:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals</p>
</blockquote>

united-states us-supreme-court marriage